Ivan Vilata i Balaguer (2025-02-13 12:39:49 +0100) wrote:

> Ivan Vilata i Balaguer (2025-01-27 20:07:22 +0100) wrote:
> 
> > matograine (2025-01-23 06:31:07 +0100) wrote:
> > 
> > > Le 22/01/2025 à 17:02, Ivan Vilata i Balaguer a écrit :
> > > >
> > > > => gwit://0x16C8A566BB88303C2513CF6328996D46E0440E85/blog/2024
> > > > /offlirsoch.gmi#existing-stuff??https://framagit.org/matograine
> > > > /gwitsite.git
> > > >
> > > > A client parsing that would get the fragment, cut it on the last `??`,
> > > > use the URL to its right as a remote, and leave the stuff to its left
> > > > as the fragment (removing it altogether if left empty).
> > > 
> > > So, when a gwit client weets such a URI :
> > > 
> > > - if it does not already know the site, it uses the provided remote
> > > 
> > > - if it already knows the site, it MAY use the provided remote but MAY as
> > > well use already-known remotes. The client MAY have an interface so user car
> > > indicate which  remote(s) to use.
> > 
> > Yes, I guess it makes sense that every client SHOULD split the fragment on
> > `??`, but they MAY implement the handling of the remote as they see fit.
> > 
> > I'll add an issue to the spec describing this feature request as a reminder.
> 
> Here's the issue: <https://git.sr.ht/~ivilata/gwit-spec/tree/master/item/issues/support-uri-embedded-remote.gmi>

Support for URI-embedded locations added to the spec here:
<https://git.sr.ht/~ivilata/gwit-spec/commit/bcd3e275afd45ad16d4f42e2a7e524ddc70a6bf7>

Cheers!

-- 
Ivan Vilata i Balaguer -- https://elvil.net/