On 21 June 2012 04:16, Christoph Lohmann <
20h@r-36.net> wrote:
> 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