[gopher] Draft RFC
Nick Matavka
n.theodore.matavka.files at gmail.com
Thu Jun 21 20:18:43 UTC 2012
On 21 June 2012 12:27, Damien Carol <damien.carol at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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/
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gopher-Project mailing list
> Gopher-Project at lists.alioth.debian.org
> http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gopher-project
What's wrong with using the number 404 to mean "file not found"?
Everybody knows about it and it's simple.
--
/^\/^\
\----|
_---'---~~~~-_
~~~|~~L~|~~~~
(/_ /~~--
\~ \ / /~
__~\ ~ / ~~----,
\ | | / \
/| |/ | |
| | | o o /~ |
_-~_ | || \ /
(// )) | o o \\---'
//_- | | \
// |____|\______\__\
~ | / | |
|_ / \ _|
/~___| /____\
More information about the Gopher-Project
mailing list