[gopher] Draft RFC

Thu Jun 21 16:27:25 UTC 2012

I agree HTTP code IS a wrong idea and nobody will implement that.

>>* 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.

And... Bitch PLZ it's HTTP !!!!! U FUCKING KIDDING ME ?

:D

2012/6/21 Wolfgang Faust <wolfgangmcq at gmail.com>

> * 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/a32317f9/attachment.html>