Re: [gopher] Gophermap question

[Cameron Kaiser <spectre@floodgap.com>]

> > > I think in the RFC for Gopher 2.0 the last item type listed should be
> > > "none of the above"...
> >
> > Like a wildcard item type that corresponds to whatever the client is
> > instructed to do with it? I'm not opposed to that, as long as people
> > agree on a de facto standard.
> 
> Yes, that is exactly what I'm suggesting, it would allow gopher to
> cope with the kind of developments that original creators of gopher
> probably did not even dream of. Now we just need for "people" to agree
> on a de facto standard.and the developers to implement it

I'll suggest ! as an opening bid. OverbiteFF wouldn't do much with it due
to its environment, but it could be made to tell the user what it means.

-- 
------------------------------------ personal: http://www.cameronkaiser.com/ --
  Cameron Kaiser * Floodgap Systems * www.floodgap.com * ckaiser@floodgap.com
-- I do not fear computers. I fear the lack of them. -- Isaac Asimov ----------

_______________________________________________
Gopher-Project mailing list
Gopher-Project@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/gopher-project