Re: [gopher] Draft RFC
On 21 June 2012 12:13, Wolfgang Faust <wolfgangmcq@gmail.com> wrote:
> * I think that the caps file, about.txt and robots.txt should be in
> the standard because many servers use them and there isn't a better
> place to define them.
Noted. Also agreed with.
> * HTTP error codes do provide a computer-readable explanation for what
> went wrong, but I don't know of any gopher server which provides them
> and it doesn't seem likely that servers would do so in the future. I'd
> like to know what the rest of the community thinks about this.
Which is why I said "acceptable and recommended" as opposed to "mandatory".
> * The redirect is for clients which don't support URL: links but which
> do support HTML. They will be sent to the correct location so that
> they're not left wondering what went wrong.
Yes, that's what "non-compliant" means (do not support URL:).
> The example redirect is malformed HTML -- I thought I fixed it on the
> Google Doc but I can't find the revision anywhere. It seems that it
> was mangled by the original email transmission and nobody noticed
> (including me) because it looks OK at first glance. The valid HTML is:
> <HTML>
> <HEAD>
> <META HTTP-EQUIV="refresh" content="2;URL=http://www.example.com/";>
> </HEAD>
> <BODY>
> You are following an external link to a Web site. You will be
> automatically taken to the site shortly. If you do not get sent
> there, please click
> <A HREF="http://www.example.com/";>here</A> to go to the web site.
> <P>
> The URL linked is:
> <P>
> <A HREF="hhttp://www.example.com/";>http://www.example.com/</A>
> <P>
> Thanks for using Gopher!
> </BODY>
> </HTML>
>
> On 6/21/12, Nick Matavka <n.theodore.matavka.files@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 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: