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

[colecmac at protonmail.com]

> 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 =>)
> [snip]
> 2. The URL submitted to the server with the client request.

I was only talking about the first kind in my email. I'm fine with
the change to the request URL.

> I think to clarify, if there is no scheme
> on the URL sent to the server, it is the server that should respond
> with an error (after all it is not a valid full URL that is submitted).
>
> If there is no scheme on the expressed link in the gemtext (type 1
> above), the client should interpret it as a relative path, unless it
> starts "//"

Yes, I agree with all of this. I take issue with two parts:

> Clients MAY treat schemeless links in text/gemini documents as errors

and

> Authors of Gemini content or software which generates Gemini content
> MUST add explicit schemes to any schemeless links.

I think both of these changes are not great, as I explained in my original
email. It effectively disallows schemeless links in gemtext, which I'm
not in favour of.


makeworld