I said "agree" to some stuffs but I will make a more constructive comment.<br><br>I'd not finshed document analysis.<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">2012/6/22 Bradley D. Thornton <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:Bradley@northtech.us" target="_blank">Bradley@northtech.us</a>></span><br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----<br>
Hash: RIPEMD160<br>
<div class="im"><br>
<br>
<br>
On 06/21/2012 09:13 AM, Wolfgang Faust wrote:<br>
<br>
> * The redirect is for clients which don't support URL: links but which<br>
> do support HTML. They will be sent to the correct location so that<br>
> they're not left wondering what went wrong.<br>
<br>
</div>Isn't this best left as a function for clients?<br>
<br>
I'm just throwing this out there, and could be wrong, yet it seems to be<br>
that URL is for URL and not for HTTP or <a href=<a href="http://blah" target="_blank">http://blah</a>></a><br>
<br>
In my thinking, and historically so, Microsoft started the trend on<br>
making browsers braindead. Before the netscape wars you could reliably<br>
expect a level of competence from the user. Sure, (and I think it was<br>
Netscape that actually introduced it), you could declare a host whose<br>
name began with 'www.sld.tld' on the address bar and the browser would<br>
assume that you meant '<a href="http://www.sld.tld" target="_blank">http://www.sld.tld</a>', but that was simply because<br>
convention dictates that a host named 'www' is typically a service<br>
listening on port 80.<br>
<br>
Even now, we enter 'gopher://host.sld.tld/....' (An URL)<br>
<br>
and should we (inhabitants of the planet Earth) pay the price for<br>
Microsoft's policy of "Embrace, Extend, Extinguish" by permitting the<br>
user to become so stupid as to not know that:<br>
<br>
<a href="ftp://host.sld.tld" target="_blank">ftp://host.sld.tld</a> is different from <a href="http://host.sld.tld" target="_blank">http://host.sld.tld</a> - even if (I'm<br>
not certain of this anymore) the hostname you placed on your browser's<br>
address bar would be converted to <a href="ftp://ftp.sld.tld" target="_blank">ftp://ftp.sld.tld</a> if you entered<br>
'ftp.sld.tld'?<br>
<br>
But that's why the protocol in the string on the address bar....<br>
<br>
I may have a an FTP server called jikjau.sld.tld and an HTTP server<br>
called chickensau.sld.tld.<br>
<br>
What about:<br>
<br>
irc://<a href="http://chat.freenode.net" target="_blank">chat.freenode.net</a> (an URL)<br>
<br>
skype://tallship/chat (an URL that leads to me)<br>
<br>
or some other URL.<br>
<br>
I'm really not comfortable with solutions that defer to HTTP as *the*<br>
definition of an URL, much less a proposed standard that does, by<br>
assuming that a client's lack of understanding of URL somehow assumes<br>
that it is the server's job to redirect with an HTTP URL....<br>
<br>
If that's what your saying in the RFC draft WIP.<br>
<br>
And yes, I think it would be best to make sure it's formatted in RFC<br>
format too ;) After all, that's how it's going to need to be submitted.<br>
<br>
I applaud your effort and see some good stuff there. I also believe that<br>
we *may* enjoy some benefit from publishing an RFC draft - but having<br>
served on many task forces, steering committees, and working groups for<br>
the IETF, IRTF, and IRSG of the IETF and IAB, I both caution and urge<br>
the entire group here NOT to submit such a draft in haste, as there is<br>
obviously much more consensus to be reached here, understanding between<br>
the party's involved, and indeed some maturation of the notions which<br>
will be proposed in such a draft RFC.<br>
<br>
I'm also glad that Chris Lohmann elaborated upon his objections and why<br>
- - so many people just offer a, "Yeah me too", or a "I don't like that" -<br>
which is fricken worthless towards achieving a goal. Those people might<br>
as well not even bother commenting.<br>
<br>
Why nots, and Alternatives are also very important in such a process.<br>
<br>
We've ventured into territory that I believe is outside the scope of<br>
what this list was originally intended - but that's okay, as long as we<br>
understand that at least some threads on this list moving forward are<br>
going to be functionally the equivilant of an IETF working group or<br>
steering committee - which demands a slow, methodical plodding along in<br>
order to produce truly wonderul results.<br>
<br>
A few weeks of hard work is to be appluaded, but IMSHO doesn't rise to<br>
the standards of producing such truly wonderful results - it is a start<br>
towards that.<br>
<br>
I hope I have not offended anyone or caused any undue tl;dr's :)<br>
<div><div class="h5"><br>
> The example redirect is malformed HTML -- I thought I fixed it on the<br>
> Google Doc but I can't find the revision anywhere. It seems that it<br>
> was mangled by the original email transmission and nobody noticed<br>
> (including me) because it looks OK at first glance. The valid HTML is:<br>
> <HTML><br>
> <HEAD><br>
> <META HTTP-EQUIV="refresh" content="2;URL=<a href="http://www.example.com/" target="_blank">http://www.example.com/</a>"><br>
> </HEAD><br>
> <BODY><br>
> You are following an external link to a Web site. You will be<br>
> automatically taken to the site shortly. If you do not get sent<br>
> there, please click<br>
> <A HREF="<a href="http://www.example.com/" target="_blank">http://www.example.com/</a>">here</A> to go to the web site.<br>
> <P><br>
> The URL linked is:<br>
> <P><br>
> <A HREF="hhttp://<a href="http://www.example.com/" target="_blank">www.example.com/</a>"><a href="http://www.example.com/" target="_blank">http://www.example.com/</a></A><br>
> <P><br>
> Thanks for using Gopher!<br>
> </BODY><br>
> </HTML><br>
><br>
> On 6/21/12, Nick Matavka <<a href="mailto:n.theodore.matavka.files@gmail.com">n.theodore.matavka.files@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
>> On 21 June 2012 09:28, Damien Carol <<a href="mailto:damien.carol@gmail.com">damien.carol@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
>>> I agree, every modern server I saw have "about" node and many have<br>
>>> "robots.txt" and "caps.txt".<br>
>>><br>
>>> I think you should consider writing your document in "RFC" format.<br>
>>><br>
>>> Many RFC only formalize use of techs like robots.txt.<br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>> 2012/6/21 Nick Matavka <<a href="mailto:n.theodore.matavka.files@gmail.com">n.theodore.matavka.files@gmail.com</a>><br>
>>>><br>
>>>> On 21 June 2012 04:16, Christoph Lohmann <<a href="mailto:20h@r-36.net">20h@r-36.net</a>> wrote:<br>
>>>>> Greetings.<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 10:16:05 +0200 Nick Matavka<br>
>>>>> <<a href="mailto:n.theodore.matavka.files@gmail.com">n.theodore.matavka.files@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
>>>>>> Hello, world!<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> Having spent several weeks writing this, I believe that the draft RFC<br>
>>>>>> is just about ready to be published. Without further ado, allow me<br>
>>>>>> to<br>
>>>>>> present the new Gopher specification! Unless anyone says otherwise,<br>
>>>>>> this is what will get published.<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> <a href="http://piratepad.net/gopher" target="_blank">http://piratepad.net/gopher</a><br>
>>>>>> [snip ... too long signature]<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> I am against this draft:<br>
>>>>> 1.) The caps file shouldn't be in the *protocol* specification.<br>
>>>>> 2.) robots.txt shouldn't be in the *protocol* specification.<br>
>>>>> 3.) about.txt shouldn't be in the *protocol* specification.<br>
>>>>> 4.) The definition of the full stop termination of text files in<br>
>>>>> this draft does not solve anything. It can be sent as before<br>
>>>>> and clients have to take some magic to know if it is part of<br>
>>>>> the content or the transfer protocol.<br>
>>>>> 5.) Why is there a need to include the HTTP error codes? Item type<br>
>>>>> 3 and predefined strings should simplify it.<br>
>>>>> 6.) Who uses this TITLE stuff?<br>
>>>>> 7.) According to that draft proposal it is possible to have the<br>
>>>>> URL: redirections in every selector. This would create much<br>
>>>>> confusion without the »h« item type in conjunction.<br>
>>>>> 8.) Servers still have to provide the redirection hack. This draft<br>
>>>>> does not solve anything there.<br>
>>>>> 9.) Why is there a definition of a redirect page? Why are people<br>
>>>>> restricted in it? Couldn't it just be avoided?<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> My conclusion is, that with that draft in action gopher is nothing<br>
>>>>> else<br>
>>>>> but a simplified HTTP with hacks and more unspecified behaviour.<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> Sincerely,<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> Christoph Lohmann<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>><br>
>>>> If caps and robots shouldn't be in the protocol specification, where<br>
>>>> does one standardise such things? Several people actually<br>
>>>> Google-Doced that these things must be there.<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> What I am seeking to do is take a snapshot of Gopher as currently<br>
>>>> used, and there's no question that caps and robots are currently used.<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> If I were to implement your changes, there would be nothing left but<br>
>>>> effectively the 1991 version of gopher.<br>
>>>><br>
>><br>
>> Mr Carol, just whom do you agree with? Me or Mr Lohmann?<br>
>><br>
>> --<br>
>> /^\/^\<br>
>> \----|<br>
>> _---'---~~~~-_<br>
>> ~~~|~~L~|~~~~<br>
>> (/_ /~~--<br>
>> \~ \ / /~<br>
>> __~\ ~ / ~~----,<br>
>> \ | | / \<br>
>> /| |/ | |<br>
>> | | | o o /~ |<br>
>> _-~_ | || \ /<br>
>> (// )) | o o \\---'<br>
>> //_- | | \<br>
>> // |____|\______\__\<br>
>> ~ | / | |<br>
>> |_ / \ _|<br>
>> /~___| /____\<br>
>><br>
>> _______________________________________________<br>
>> Gopher-Project mailing list<br>
>> <a href="mailto:Gopher-Project@lists.alioth.debian.org">Gopher-Project@lists.alioth.debian.org</a><br>
>> <a href="http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gopher-project" target="_blank">http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gopher-project</a><br>
>><br>
><br>
><br>
<br>
</div></div>- --<br>
Bradley D. Thornton<br>
Manager Network Services<br>
NorthTech Computer<br>
TEL: <a href="tel:%2B1.310.388.9469" value="+13103889469">+1.310.388.9469</a> (US)<br>
TEL: <a href="tel:%2B44.203.318.2755" value="+442033182755">+44.203.318.2755</a> (UK)<br>
TEL: <a href="tel:%2B41.43.508.05.10" value="+41435080510">+41.43.508.05.10</a> (CH)<br>
<a href="http://NorthTech.US" target="_blank">http://NorthTech.US</a><br>
<br>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----<br>
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)<br>
Comment: Find this cert at x-hkp://<a href="http://pool.sks-keyservers.net" target="_blank">pool.sks-keyservers.net</a><br>
<br>
iQEcBAEBAwAGBQJP49PIAAoJEE1wgkIhr9j3pjwH/27uXJAsXYlDeM6vq9rEDBti<br>
fMxbFXE1FAnP2TSrd5yidMdlbgggPYUWpGaJv6grMaGMP6XjCs+vpGP2Hirn7mI6<br>
nAZ52HvG5heSmsyCnm1lRq7aSEF4F4kQ67bMsLXh0JdFIwzflhUM//8aI6sPAebx<br>
+COKuAuiHo++b75MtszUpUhh5vpnmE9bGTu6TmbU6UruQGKdUSNm2F0AmGAHUe/+<br>
6qwZDf5kIreNkTwGiIKRg16R0esH7gv50IA3psmH0xR19OQhygXnjNKPSTxqTKvf<br>
s6tWHwNQFsyl+dj12LP+hrjUAF7BoucnSIrfXeukMwwSKjV/Tf6GlQ8wiH1PqUM=<br>
=TBpu<br>
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----<br>
<div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Gopher-Project mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Gopher-Project@lists.alioth.debian.org">Gopher-Project@lists.alioth.debian.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gopher-project" target="_blank">http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gopher-project</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>Damien CAROL<br>
<a href="gopher://dams.zapto.org/1/" target="_blank">gopher://dams.zapto.org/1/</a><br>