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

[Solderpunk]

On Mon Nov 30, 2020 at 11:03 PM CET, Solderpunk wrote:

> > No, you are right, I misread his email. I personally think he made a
> > mistake here in removing relative links (which include schemeless links)
> > from text/gemini.
>
> Oh, gosh darn it. I obviously didn't mean to do that. This is what I
> get for trying to squeeze spec changes into small slices of free time.
> Sorry, everyone. I will fix this tomorrow.

...wait.  I didn't actually remove relative links at all.  That's a
relief.  I was tired when I saw Sean's email and assumed the first!

I just went through everything again.  My email to this list explaining
the changes I made didn't square up with the actual changes I made to
the spec.  Sorry for the confusion.  To be very clear, relative links
are absolutely still permitted in text/gemini documents, and in fact
even schemeless links are still permitted in text/gemini documents.  The
only actual change to the spec that pertains to => links is that I
removed the part saying that if there was no scheme the client should
assume one of gemini://.  This, I think, is actually fine - see Alex
Schroeder's post on the nice use of these rare kind of link for serving
text/gemini over other protocols:
gemini://alexschroeder.ch/page/2020-11-30_Gemini_specification_changes_in_a_disagreeable_way

Schemeless links are only forbidden in requests, i.e. what a client
sends to a server.

Sorry again for the confusion.  I hope this won't happen again, and I
hope it would also be obvious, but for the record, where a change to the
spec and my announcement to the spec don't match up, the actual spec
document is, of course, authoritative.

Cheers,
Solderpunk