[gopher] Updated Gopher RFC

[Mateusz Viste]

That's eactly what I was thinking about right now.
I think such "m" filetype is a quite good idea. When a client gets such file, it would get the mime-type of the file in the first line of the answer, and then the actual file.

This would not break support of older gopher clients, because these would simply not handle 'm' filetypes at all.

Mateusz




On Tuesday 08 May 2012 20:48:36 Dennis Schulmeister wrote:
> On Tue, 08 May 2012 17:08:17 +0100
> Alistair <alistair at alistairsserver.no-ip.org> wrote:
> 
> > Trouble is there's a gazillion kinds of file and soon you end up with a 
> > huge mess like mimetypes.
> 
> Why do you think mime types are a mess? IMHO it's the only way to
> reliably tell the file type without analyzing the file itself. With one
> letter item types you won't get very far. Especially if you're
> restricted to 7-bit ascii or even any 8-bit encoding.
> 
> I wonder what would happen if we added a m item type (as in mime-type)
> which has an additional TAB mime-type added at the end of the line. How
> many clients would break?
> 
> Dennis
> 
> 
> Yours sincerely,
> Dennis Schulmeister
> 
>