[gopher] Re: Establishment of .gopher TLD

[brian@pongonova.net]

On Sat, Aug 02, 2008 at 09:04:46PM -0500, Kyevan wrote:
> What's your reasoning for that? I mean, Gopher should be primary, but I 
> don't see an issue with, say, turning on the http access in pygopherd or 
> using some other proxy, or running sshd for remote administration, or such.

Kyevan, permit me to post the same response to another individual who
raised the same question:

    Good point...although while I've heard of "gopherspace," I've not               heard of "httpspace," "ftpspace,", "telnetspace," etc.                                                                                
    There's nothing stopping the introduction of protocol-based TLDs...but          I think motivation is important:  My desire to introduce .gopher is to          help reinvigorate the movement to bring gopher back to the masses.              The http protocol doesn't need such a boost, neither does ftp, telnet,          smtp, etc.

> Except ICANN's .biz, last I looked. This may have changed now that 
> PacRoot is dead, though.

OpenNIC had .biz before ICANN laid claim to it.  So we consider it a collider

> Except that whatever:// is actually for the client only, so it knows if 
> it needs to send a gopher selectorm http's multitude of headers, 
> negotiate an ssh connection, or fire up Unreal Tournament for a 
> deathmatch ;)

But clients could take advantage of a .gopher TLD if they were
configured to do so, so the point is valid, just not in the context of
most (all?) current browsers.

  --Brian