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

[Robert "khuxkm" Miles]

November 30, 2020 5:07 AM, "Sean Conner" <sean at conman.org> wrote:

> Luke Emmet mentioned this, but I think it got lost. In text/gemini, the
> following are all legal links:
> 
> => gemini://example.net/path/foo.gemini Absolute URL - fully specified
> => //example.net/path/foo.gemini relative URL - no scheme
> => /path/foo.gemini relative URL - no host
> => foo.gemini relative URL - no path
> => ../path/foo.gemini relative URL - relative
> 
> It is up to the client to resolve these, using rules specified in RFC-3986
> section 5.2.
> 
> What Solderpunk just changed was the request *TO* a Gemini server. It
> used to be the following two forms were allowed when making a request to a
> Gemini server:
> 
> gemini://example.net/path/foo.gemini
> //example.net/path/foo.gemini
> 
> This was confusing, and so the schemeless format is no longer allowed when
> making a request to a Gemini server. The only form that is now allowed when
> making a request to a Gemini server is:
> 
> gemini://example.net/path/foo.gemini
> 
> -spc

Not so. From Solderpunk's email that started the whole chain (emphasis mine):

> Previously, Gemini requests *and links in text/gemini documents* could both omit the scheme, and servers/clients were expected to add an implicit scheme of "gemini".  This has been changed and now schemes are mandatory in URLs in *both* these contexts.

Correct me if I'm wrong (perhaps this is just an ambiguous statement I didn't pick up on), but the implication I got is that links now also need the gemini scheme. Also from Solderpunk's email (again, emphasis mine):

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

Again, if all that was changed was the request side of things, this wouldn't need to be in the email. I'm all for getting rid of the ambiguity of schemeless URLs in requests, but not for link lines.

Just my two cents,
Robert "khuxkm" Miles