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

[Luke Emmet]

On 29-Nov-2020 22:06, Luke Emmet wrote:
>
>
> On 29-Nov-2020 21:54, colecmac at protonmail.com wrote:
>> (I keep replying only to the author and not the list, sorry.)
>>
>>
>> I agree with everything up to this:
>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> Authors of Gemini content or software which generates Gemini content
>>> MUST add explicit schemes to any schemeless links.
>> What is the issue with scheme-less link lines? These are perfectly 
>> valid,
>> and any client with a good URL parsing library should support them. They
>> are already in use by authors, and are of particular importance to sites
>> that support bi-hosting on the Web and on Gemini, like flounder.online.
>> That way the links users make will work in both spaces automatically.
>
> I think there is some confusion in this thread. Here is my 
> interpretation, maybe it can help clarify the conversation.
>
> There are two "types" of link we are talking about.
>
> 1. The link lines in gemtext files (the line types beginning =>)
>
> In the first case, if you want a "schemeless" link (i.e. one that 
> works for HTTP and Gemini) use the following form:
>
> \\server\path\to\endpoint
>

Oops - did you spot the obvious error (too many hours spent on UNC paths 
in Windows methinks)

Of course, I meant:

//server/path/to/endpoint

  - Luke