[spec] Regarding the proposal to remove status code 11

[PJ vM]

On 16/03/2021 02:18, Luke Emmet wrote:
> the user may not be able to readily actually see the location, which
> may be a security concern in its own right.

The hidden part of the URI would always be something that the user typed
in a short while ago. Also, unless one holds your view that a URI must
contain only location information (in that view SC11 is invalid), in the
case of SC11 the query would not really be considered part of the location.

> Ironically the gemini URI scheme does not permit users to put user 
> info (user name or password) into the URI.

Allowing both the userinfo component and the query component would mean
two different methods for input/parametrisation, one of which can
contain one string and one of which can contain either one or two, and
they could potentially both be used in one URI. For consistency's and
simplicity's sake, allowing only the query component and not the
userinfo component is a logical choice.

> So no I won't be attempting to obfuscate URIs in GemiNaut and it
> will warn users if the server invites them to put sensitive info into
> the URI.
Do as you wish with your client.

-- 
pjvm