Re: [gopher] Draft RFC
On 21 June 2012 09:28, Damien Carol <damien.carol@gmail.com> wrote:
> I agree, every modern server I saw have "about" node and many have
> "robots.txt" and "caps.txt".
>
> I think you should consider writing your document in "RFC" format.
>
> Many RFC only formalize use of techs like robots.txt.
>
>
> 2012/6/21 Nick Matavka <n.theodore.matavka.files@gmail.com>
>>
>> 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
>> >
>> >
>> If caps and robots shouldn't be in the protocol specification, where
>> does one standardise such things? Several people actually
>> Google-Doced that these things must be there.
>>
>> What I am seeking to do is take a snapshot of Gopher as currently
>> used, and there's no question that caps and robots are currently used.
>>
>> If I were to implement your changes, there would be nothing left but
>> effectively the 1991 version of gopher.
>>
Mr Carol, just whom do you agree with? Me or Mr Lohmann?
--
/^\/^\
\----|
_---'---~~~~-_
~~~|~~L~|~~~~
(/_ /~~--
\~ \ / /~
__~\ ~ / ~~----,
\ | | / \
/| |/ | |
| | | o o /~ |
_-~_ | || \ /
(// )) | o o \\---'
//_- | | \
// |____|\______\__\
~ | / | |
|_ / \ _|
/~___| /____\
_______________________________________________
Gopher-Project mailing list
Gopher-Project@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gopher-project
Reply to: