Re: Setting default server
Greetings,
sorry for first sending off list.
On Tue, 20 Mar 2018 19:08:05 +0100 Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@ist.utl.pt> wrote:
> On 2018-03-20 08:43 +0000, David Griffith wrote:
> > I still like the look and feel of the standard gopher(1) client. Is there
> > some way to add gopher+ support to it?
>
> I think the problem is the presence of gopher+ support (and the way in
> which it is used), not its absence (Christoph, did you mean "backwards
> compatible to gopher" instead of "... gopher+"?).
For me gopher+ is the past so gopher(1) is still backwards compatible to
this old protocol which is not really thought out and represents the
reason why the web failed and gopher would fail too, if gopher+ is kept.
For David: My intention is to not support gopher+ since as said, it is
not well thought out and does not add any real value. The value of go???
pher nowadays is its simplicity. The real solution would be to take over
the maintainership of gopher(1) and remove the way it tries to use go???
pher+ first. The gopher+ support in gopher(1) is not thought out too. If
you use some URI gopher is used, if you only specify some host, gopher+
is used. If you specify everything with parameters gopher is used. Go???
pher+ has to die and gopher(1) is the last remaining bug. The redirect
in geomyidae is already a big hack to support this unclean gopher+ pro???
tocol.
Who is the maintainer of gopher(1)? I could provide a patch to remove
this annoying behaviour.
Sincerely,
Christoph Lohmann
Reply to: