[SPEC-CHANGE] Mandatory scheme in request and link URLs

[Adnan Maolood]

On Sun Nov 29, 2020 at 4:33 PM EST, John Cowan wrote:
> > Clients MAY treat
> > schemeless links in text/gemini documents as errors, but again assuming
> > a scheme of gemini may be considered a valid application of Postel's
> > law.
>
> They aren't errors: they are relative references. If a file "gemini://
> example.net/this/that/file1.gmi" has a link saying "
> example.com/path/to/file2.gmi", for example, that does *not* mean in RFC
> 3986 "gemini://example.com/path/to/file2.gmi" but rather "gemini://
> example.net/this/that/example.com/path/to/file2.gmi". So this is a Big
> Bang change in the interpretation of text/gemini files. But I am still
> for it, not against it.

I think that schemeless links in text/gemini documents should not be
considered errors. Clients should resolve the relative reference before
sending the request.