Re: Questions about URLs for Gopher search items
On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 07:07:37PM -0400, Sean Conner wrote:
> I'm not sure of the answer to this. Having written both a generic URL
> parser  and a separate one just for gopher  I did wonder why RFC-4266
> never used a URL query string.
In addition to the ease of implementation you mention, it was pointed
out in an earlier post that RFC 1436 quite clearly permits ?
characters in selectors. Although, now that I think about it, perhaps
that's not necessarily a problem. You know RFC 3986 much better than
I do, but I suspect maybe ?s are permitted in paths if they are hex
encoded? If so, it actually *would* have been possible for RFC 4266
to just codify what Lynx was already doing.
> I can see the use of:
> (that is, use '7' when there's no search term, but '1' othewise).
That was my initial thought too, but see my more recent posts to
this list. I now think that using anything other than a 7 along with
a %09 and a search term is inconsistent with a strict reading of RFC