On Thu, 10 May 2012, Denis Bernard wrote:
Jacob Dahl Pind <rachael@...> writes:you can not be seriours, the document describing gopher+ is far from clearSorry to tell you that this document is easy to read and understand! But the reader is supposed to be already familiarized with the basic protocol...
Do you really think the whole +views and ASK parts are described in a meaningful way that facilitated others to make an implementation ?
and anything but the transmission of sizes, and it was never ever widely support by anythingMaybe Gopher+ was not widely implemented. But the Web wiped suddenly the gopher space at his epoch. So it is not a good argument.
Other than UMN gopherd that server did ever support it ? , it was a ignored and failed proposal, and as such it should'nt form the basis for a revised gopher rfc.
Gopher+ didnt solve any of the things people have brought up here now.Sorry to tell you again: Gopher+ solve all things that people are to day complaining here. Just take time to read this Gopher+ proposals!
Would you please point out where it would add addition info about a filetype, like Cameron is suggesting ? The only thing I sees is the ! which would be an addition selector lookup per file, meaning one would have to access that before the actual file.
-- Jacob Dahl Pind | telefisk.org | fidonet 2:230/38.8 _______________________________________________ Gopher-Project mailing list Gopher-Project@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gopher-project