[gopher] Draft RFC

[Damien Carol]

I agree, every modern server I saw have "about" node and many have
"robots.txt" and "caps.txt".

I think you should consider writing your document in "RFC" format.

Many RFC only formalize use of techs like robots.txt.

2012/6/21 Nick Matavka <n.theodore.matavka.files at gmail.com>

> On 21 June 2012 04:16, Christoph Lohmann <20h at r-36.net> wrote:
> > Greetings.
> >
> > On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 10:16:05 +0200 Nick Matavka <
> n.theodore.matavka.files at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Hello, world!
> >>
> >> Having spent several weeks writing this, I believe that the draft RFC
> >> is just about ready to be published.  Without further ado, allow me to
> >> present the new Gopher specification!  Unless anyone says otherwise,
> >> this is what will get published.
> >>
> >> http://piratepad.net/gopher
> >> [snip ... too long signature]
> >
> > I am against this draft:
> > 1.) The caps file shouldn't be in the *protocol* specification.
> > 2.) robots.txt shouldn't be in the *protocol* specification.
> > 3.) about.txt shouldn't be in the *protocol* specification.
> > 4.) The definition of the full stop termination of text files in
> >    this draft does not solve anything. It can be sent as before
> >    and clients have to take some magic to know if it is part of
> >    the content or the transfer protocol.
> > 5.) Why is there a need to include the HTTP error codes? Item type
> >    3 and predefined strings should simplify it.
> > 6.) Who uses this TITLE stuff?
> > 7.) According to that draft proposal it is possible to have the
> >    URL: redirections in every selector. This would create much
> >    confusion without the »h« item type in conjunction.
> > 8.) Servers still have to provide the redirection hack. This draft
> >    does not solve anything there.
> > 9.) Why is there a definition of a redirect page? Why are people
> >    restricted in it? Couldn't it just be avoided?
> >
> > My  conclusion is, that with that draft in action gopher is nothing else
> > but a simplified HTTP with hacks and more unspecified behaviour.
> >
> >
> > Sincerely,
> >
> > Christoph Lohmann
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Gopher-Project mailing list
> > Gopher-Project at lists.alioth.debian.org
> > http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gopher-project
>
> If caps and robots shouldn't be in the protocol specification, where
> does one standardise such things?  Several people actually
> Google-Doced that these things must be there.
>
> What I am seeking to do is take a snapshot of Gopher as currently
> used, and there's no question that caps and robots are currently used.
>
> If I were to implement your changes, there would be nothing left but
> effectively the 1991 version of gopher.
>
> --
>        /^\/^\
>        \----|
>    _---'---~~~~-_
>     ~~~|~~L~|~~~~
>        (/_  /~~--
>      \~ \  /  /~
>    __~\  ~ /   ~~----,
>    \    | |       /  \
>    /|   |/       |    |
>    | | | o  o     /~   |
>  _-~_  |        ||  \  /
> (// )) | o  o    \\---'
> //_- |  |          \
> //   |____|\______\__\
> ~      |   / |    |
>        |_ /   \ _|
>      /~___|  /____\
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gopher-Project mailing list
> Gopher-Project at lists.alioth.debian.org
> http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gopher-project
>



-- 
Damien CAROL
gopher://dams.zapto.org/1/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/gopher-project/attachments/20120621/96bfbcff/attachment.html>