It was thus said that the Great Sean Conner once stated:
Well, neither are types 'i' or h' or the URL: selector hack, yet they're in wide use today. Just because it's not in the RFC doesn't mean we can't care about it.
Sorry didn't had this in my mind. First, I'm not into Gopher+. I only know that it offers metadata communication. If a Gopher+ server implements Gopher over TLS it would also need to implement the extra flag. What would be the point in implementing Gopher over TLS without all standards.
I think you're point is if this is compatible to Gopher+.The short answer is probably no because of the extra flag we talked about earlier. The long answer is that if Gopher+ server & clients implement TLS support, they should implement the protocol completely.
Gopher over TLS shouldn't exclude (some kind of) Gopher+ integration but also we shouldn't focus to much on Gopher+. An internet without standards in simply not possible.
Cheers, Emil Am 16.03.20 um 22:36 schrieb Sean Conner:
It was thus said that the Great Emil Engler once stated:I agree with the stream hack, it isn't really beautiful. To the point of Gopher+. It isn't an official RFC standard therefore we shouldn't really care about it IMO.Well, neither are types 'i' or h' or the URL: selector hack, yet they're in wide use today. Just because it's not in the RFC doesn't mean we can't care about it. -spc