[gopher] Re: Gopher "robots.txt"
On Sun, Jan 14, 2001 at 09:32:45PM -0800, Cameron Kaiser wrote:
> > It wouldn't be that much of a performance hit. Rather than fetching the
> > directory with a normal gopher request, then fetching the attributes for
> > each entry of the directory, the robot could make a request something
> > like this:
> >
> > 1/directoryF$+VIEWS+ABSTRACT+ROBOTS
<snip>
>
> This is a excellent idea, but I don't think we want to require all robots or
> robot-like things to be gopher+ compliant. It would be nice, but I don't
> think it should be mandatory.
Well if you're going to staple something new onto gopher, it makes
sense to do it in gopher+, rathern than modifiying the original gopher
with additions to it rather than gopher+, since after all gopher+ was
just a set of modifications to gopher. :)
> Also, this doesn't solve the problem adequately for those *servers* which are
> not gopher+ compliant, or certain subsets of indexed search servers that can't
> or don't make gopher+ compliant responses (I can think of several immediately).
Hm. Well, I can agree with this, but at the same time, what is to
become of gopher+? You can either merge it with the original gopher
and say "this is what gopher is, and we'll write software
accordingly", or you can throw out gopher+ and stick only with gopher,
but having gopher+ sitting around as something that might be supported
and might not be seems like a pain. Gopher+ has some decent
abilities, and I don't see why you shouldn't use them in this
situation. So maybe we should be asking if gopher+ is something that
should continue to be sometimes-supported, or if it should be taken in
or thrown out.
--
David Allen
http://opop.nols.com/
----------------------------------------
Official Project Stages:
(1) Uncritical Acceptance
(2) Wild Enthusiasm
(3) Dejected Disillusionment
(4) Total Confusion
(5) Search for the Guilty
(6) Punishment of the Innocent
(7) Promotion of the Non-participants
Reply to: