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

Waweic waweic at activ.ism.rocks
Mon Nov 30 05:51:23 GMT 2020


I can't find the change concerning the text/gemini media type reflected
in the spec. Is there some version history which I could diff? This
would simplify things a bit.
So far, this part of the spec seems fine in my opinion, I would
disagree with said change. RFC 3986 has a section on reference
resolution (section 5) and even a pseudocode algorithm and a regex,
this should be implemented anyway. I do not think the right way to go
here is adapting the spec to mistakes people make, I rather think those
mistakes should be fixed.

RFC 3986 defines an unambigous set of valid URIs and their meaning. As
I see it, the difference between URIs and URI References is important
here. In Gemini requests, we ask for a specific, resource, so only a
URI makes sense here, complete with a scheme, authority, path and
query. This is now reflected in the spec, which I quite like!

In Gemini documents however, where we refer to different resources, we
use an URI Reference. Here, omitting the scheme has valid usecases, as
have relative URI References. This is unambiguously defined in RFC
3986, I do not see a point in adding limitations where there is no
ambiguity.

In theory, software which generates Gemini content doesn't know over
what protocol this content will be served, it may, for example, be
HTTP. Thus, it can't possibly add an explicit scheme

Furthermore, I do not know whether RFC 3986 even allows this
limitation. It may well be that this is not our decision to make,
following the RFC, although this is just speculation.



More information about the Gemini mailing list