Re: [gopher] Updated Gopher RFC
On 2012-05-08, Cameron Kaiser 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?
>
> I actually proposed exactly this some time ago and it was unpopular for
> some reason. Perhaps Nuno or John G remembers.
Yes, I remember this was previously debated in the list, but I don't
recall exactly what happened.
> The only catch here is Gopher+ clients. If they object to *anything* being
> there but a +, then we have a problem. If UMN digests it fine, I think we
> could call that "standard."
>From what I remember, the gopher+ column was added to gopher menus
relying on older clients discarding anything else they didn't understand
at the end of menu entries.
So maybe, if we want to add a mime-type column, we could do so *after*
the g+ column.
> But I would fully back an idea like this.
--
Nuno J. Silva (aka njsg)
gopher://sdf-eu.org/1/users/njsg
http://njsg.sdf-eu.org/
_______________________________________________
Gopher-Project mailing list
Gopher-Project@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gopher-project
Reply to: