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

[Björn Wärmedal]

> > leaving existing behaviour of assuming a scheme of gemini in place
> > could be considered a valid application of Postel's law.
>
> Note that one of the reasons why the Web became so bloated is
> precisely Postel's law (the robustness principle). Browsers and
> servers violate the spec, these violations soon became
> de-facto-mandatory-to-support and one after the other, the "unofficial
> spec" became much larger than the real one.

I agree with the general principle that you should be conservative
(even draconian) in your implementation. Stick to the specification,
and keep the specification concise and unambiguous. If you receive
requests or answers that don't adhere to the specification these
should be treated as errors. A liberal or lenient interpretation of
the spec leads to problems down the line.

On the topic of explicit scheme in gemtext links I have one opinion
and one question.

Opinion: when cross-hosting between the web and geminispace I think
the publisher can reasonably be expected to run a search-replace. If I
host on both https://tilde.team/~ew0k/ and gemini://tilde.team/~ew0k/
I can easily make sure to replace that particular line in links. I see
that there may be an issue if I link to someone else who also
cross-posts, though... I'm willing to admit that the scheme should NOT
be required in gemtext links.

Question: How does this work with relative links in gemtext documents?

Cheers,
ew0k