Re: [gopher] Draft RFC
Greetings.
On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 10:16:05 +0200 Nick Matavka <n.theodore.matavka.files@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello, world!
>
> Having spent several weeks writing this, I believe that the draft RFC
> is just about ready to be published. Without further ado, allow me to
> present the new Gopher specification! Unless anyone says otherwise,
> this is what will get published.
>
> http://piratepad.net/gopher
> [snip ... too long signature]
I am against this draft:
1.) The caps file shouldn't be in the *protocol* specification.
2.) robots.txt shouldn't be in the *protocol* specification.
3.) about.txt shouldn't be in the *protocol* specification.
4.) The definition of the full stop termination of text files in
this draft does not solve anything. It can be sent as before
and clients have to take some magic to know if it is part of
the content or the transfer protocol.
5.) Why is there a need to include the HTTP error codes? Item type
3 and predefined strings should simplify it.
6.) Who uses this TITLE stuff?
7.) According to that draft proposal it is possible to have the
URL: redirections in every selector. This would create much
confusion without the »h« item type in conjunction.
8.) Servers still have to provide the redirection hack. This draft
does not solve anything there.
9.) Why is there a definition of a redirect page? Why are people
restricted in it? Couldn't it just be avoided?
My conclusion is, that with that draft in action gopher is nothing else
but a simplified HTTP with hacks and more unspecified behaviour.
Sincerely,
Christoph Lohmann
_______________________________________________
Gopher-Project mailing list
Gopher-Project@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gopher-project
Reply to: