[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [gopher] Draft RFC



You definitively.

2012/6/21 Nick Matavka <n.theodore.matavka.files@gmail.com>
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



--
Damien CAROL
gopher://dams.zapto.org/1/
_______________________________________________
Gopher-Project mailing list
Gopher-Project@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gopher-project

Reply to: