Re: [gopher] You think MIME types is the killer feature ? LOLz
Jacob Dahl Pind <rachael@...> writes:
> Do you really think the whole +views and ASK parts are described in a
> meaningful way that facilitated others to make an implementation ?
Oh, yes! My point of view is, as a developer having already published a
converter from web-log to a gopher-log (nb2gopher), that I planned to implement
something under Gopher+ protocol.
Due to this polemic, I have to tell you now what was my project.
If you study how look like a gopher+ menu, you see a file made with blocks. Each
block contains meta informations relative a resource. Some of these meta
informations are mandatories, but you are free to create an unlimited amount of
meta informations per block of your own.
Now, if you study the Atom Syndication Format file, you can notice that there is
meta informations around a said resource. Obviously, these Atom meta
informations are similar of a content of a gopher+ menu...
So, my project was to make a converter that could parse an "atom.xml" file to
output a gopher+ menu. You can imagine, I thing, how easily this kind of
converter could duplicate any web site having an atom.xml file output into a
gopher hole.
To anybody wishing to create a third gopher protocol: please remember what
happened between HTML4 and HTML5: 4 different standards of xhtml and a lot of
disturbance for web designers. Please, do not repeat this error!
An other thing: you do not need of hundred implementations of gopher servers or
clients. In the Web world, there is less commonly used web servers (maybe 3)
than gopher servers in the gopher space! And, in the Web world, there is in fact
not so much clients running their own engine (maybe 5?).
I can understand how exiting is to participate to a RFC. But think about us, the
developers.
_______________________________________________
Gopher-Project mailing list
Gopher-Project@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gopher-project
Reply to: