[gopher] Draft RFC

Thu Jun 21 16:13:27 UTC 2012

* I think that the caps file, about.txt and robots.txt should be in
the standard because many servers use them and there isn't a better
place to define them.
* HTTP error codes do provide a computer-readable explanation for what
went wrong, but I don't know of any gopher server which provides them
and it doesn't seem likely that servers would do so in the future. I'd
like to know what the rest of the community thinks about this.
* The redirect is for clients which don't support URL: links but which
do support HTML. They will be sent to the correct location so that
they're not left wondering what went wrong.
The example redirect is malformed HTML -- I thought I fixed it on the
Google Doc but I can't find the revision anywhere. It seems that it
was mangled by the original email transmission and nobody noticed
(including me) because it looks OK at first glance. The valid HTML is:
<HTML>
    <HEAD>
    <META HTTP-EQUIV="refresh" content="2;URL=http://www.example.com/">
    </HEAD>
    <BODY>
    You are following an external link to a Web site.  You will be
    automatically taken to the site shortly.  If you do not get sent
    there, please click
    <A HREF="http://www.example.com/">here</A> to go to the web site.
    <P>
    The URL linked is:
    <P>
    <A HREF="hhttp://www.example.com/">http://www.example.com/</A>
    <P>
    Thanks for using Gopher!
    </BODY>
    </HTML>

On 6/21/12, Nick Matavka <n.theodore.matavka.files at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 21 June 2012 09:28, Damien Carol <damien.carol at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 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
>>> >
>>> >
>>> 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.
>>>
>
> Mr Carol, just whom do you agree with?  Me or Mr Lohmann?
>
> --
>        /^\/^\
>        \----|
>    _---'---~~~~-_
>     ~~~|~~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
>


-- 
01010111 01101111 01101100 01100110