From: gopher-bounce@complete.org Date: Tue Aug 5 04:14:28 2008 Subject: [gopher] Re: Item Type Suggestions > We already have an URL scheme which supports mime (the gopher+ views), > but that does not work with old clients: > quoting rfc1738: > > > A Gopher URL takes the form: > > > > gopher://<host>:<port>/<gopher-path> > > > > where <gopher-path> is one of > > > > <gophertype><selector> > > <gophertype><selector>%09<search> > > <gophertype><selector>%09<search>%09<gopher+_string> > > > An url for a jpeg image made available as gophertype 9 with gopher+ > would be (e.g., if the language is set as En_Us): > > gopher://server/9blablabla%09%09+image/jpeg%20En_Us > > But this needs some magic to work - the client has to remove the extra > tab, as there's no search string, because the server does not expect the > search field to be sent when it is empty. Yeah, about that. I'm antsy about using %09 in URLs -- not because it won't work, and not because it's not RFC, but because I can see well-meaning browser authors and the like throwing exceptions for a 'control character in a URL ZOMG hack alert!!1!'. I have seen this kind of idiocy on a systemic level. Don't think it wouldn't happen. Srsly. :) Yes, UTF-8 requires encoding *but* it has its high-bit set, *and* it has the weight of "everyone's using it," whereas I suspect there are very, very few non-pathologic uses of characters < %20 in URLs in practice. We don't even use it now for gopher; the convention has been '?' as a separator (I don't really like that but there it is). -- ------------------------------------ personal: http://www.cameronkaiser.com/ -- Cameron Kaiser * Floodgap Systems * www.floodgap.com * ckaiser@floodgap.com -- Never say never again. -----------------------------------------------------