----------------------------------------
       Why I use Gophermaps
       July 01st, 2018
       ----------------------------------------
       
       maiki just asked why I use gophermaps for my phlog instead of
       plain text. I know others at bitreich [0] have commented on the
       practice with various opinions on why "misusing" gophermaps is
       bad. Plenty of people on gopher use plain text for their content
       and I am not going to complain. My choice is a product of style
       and philosophy.
       
       Style:
       
       One of the best things about hypertext is the ability to link
       contextually to relevant content. Gopher is missing this to
       a degree, but not entirely. We can't link a block of text inline
       like in HTML but we can link a line. That functionality is
       entirely limited to gophermaps, though. Without the gophermap the
       best we can do is include a text link and rely on the client to go
       above and beyond the protocol to enable interaction (like VF-1 so
       valiantly does).
       
       My choice, stylistically, was to take it upon myself to do
       a little extra work and build in the links directly into the
       content by making my phlogs a gophermap. I first announced this
       change [1] back in October of 2017 when I was still relatively new
       at this whole thing. In fact, I was piggybacking on the very
       bare-bones shell scripts that would later become burrow [2]. My
       first iteration was just a bunch of echo commands to a blank file
       and then launching vim [3]. These days I have the ability to edit
       existing phlog entries, generate in plain text or gophermaps,
       auto-generate RSS, and a bunch of other crap.
       
       Philosophy:
       
       From what I've seen over my time on gopher the biggest complaint
       about gophermaps for content isn't about the effort involved in
       creating them. Instead it's an argument for purity in the
       protocol. "Don't use the 'i' item type for this sort of thing,"
       they say. "The 'i' type isn't even in RFC 1436!" And it's true.
       The type isn't defined in 1436, and it definitely isn't pure
       gopher as envisioned in the two-week sprint that a bunch of guys
       at the University of Minnesota did as much to stick it to the man
       (their school beauracracy) as they did to just get something out
       there for the community to react to.
       
       See, I don't see that as something to protect through purity. The
       mindset of those guys was to iterate, to share, to build, and to
       make the internet better. They didn't sit for years in planning
       before deploying the end-all-be-all of protocols. They cobbled
       together some crap on top of existing tools and made improvements.
       And that's what type "i" did later. It enabled us to write more
       description than would fit on one line so there was context to
       a link.
       
       That's what I see myself doing when I phlog. The links below (and
       now sometimes in-line) are given context by my post. If you're
       reading and say, "hey, I should check that out!" now you can. You
       just follow the link and boom, there you are.
       
       For those folks who don't bother with it and post in plain text,
       if I really want to chase down a link I can select it and manually
       enter it. It's more difficult, but it's doable. I hold no grudge
       against them for their choice.
       
       If you are new to gopher and just want to toss up markdown files
       that you're also using to generate a web version, go for it. I'll
       be more happy that you've decided to add content here than
       anything else. I'm certainly not going to berate your efforts by
       nit-picking on whether you use type 1 or type 0. 
       
 (DIR) [0] bitreich.org
 (DIR) [1] New Format Test
 (HTM) [2] burrow
 (TXT) [0] This is amazeballs