[gopher] Draft RFC

Thu Jun 21 17:18:53 UTC 2012

On 21 June 2012 12:13, Wolfgang Faust <wolfgangmcq at gmail.com> wrote:
> * 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.

Noted.  Also agreed with.

> * 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.

Which is why I said "acceptable and recommended" as opposed to "mandatory".

> * 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.

Yes, that's what "non-compliant" means (do not support URL:).

> 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    \\---'
//_- |  |          \
//   |____|\______\__\
~      |   / |    |
       |_ /   \ _|
     /~___|  /____\