From: gopher-project-bounces+rachael=telefisk.org@lists.alioth.debian.org Date: Thu Jun 21 16:11:08 2012 Subject: Re: [gopher] Draft RFC On 21 June 2012 09:28, Damien Carol <damien.carol@gmail.com> wrote: > I agree, every modern server I saw have "about" node and many have > "robots.txt" and "caps.txt". > > I think you should consider writing your document in "RFC" format. > > Many RFC only formalize use of techs like robots.txt. > > > 2012/6/21 Nick Matavka <n.theodore.matavka.files@gmail.com> >> >> On 21 June 2012 04:16, Christoph Lohmann <20h@r-36.net> wrote: >> > Greetings. >> > >> > On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 10:16:05 +0200 Nick Matavka >> > <n.theodore.matavka.files@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Hello, world! >> >> >> >> Having spent several weeks writing this, I believe that the draft RFC >> >> is just about ready to be published. =A0Without further ado, allow me= to >> >> present the new Gopher specification! =A0Unless anyone says otherwise, >> >> this is what will get published. >> >> >> >> http://piratepad.net/gopher >> >> [snip ... too long signature] >> > >> > I am against this draft: >> > 1.) The caps file shouldn't be in the *protocol* specification. >> > 2.) robots.txt shouldn't be in the *protocol* specification. >> > 3.) about.txt shouldn't be in the *protocol* specification. >> > 4.) The definition of the full stop termination of text files in >> > =A0 =A0this draft does not solve anything. It can be sent as before >> > =A0 =A0and clients have to take some magic to know if it is part of >> > =A0 =A0the content or the transfer protocol. >> > 5.) Why is there a need to include the HTTP error codes? Item type >> > =A0 =A03 and predefined strings should simplify it. >> > 6.) Who uses this TITLE stuff? >> > 7.) According to that draft proposal it is possible to have the >> > =A0 =A0URL: redirections in every selector. This would create much >> > =A0 =A0confusion without the =BBh=AB item type in conjunction. >> > 8.) Servers still have to provide the redirection hack. This draft >> > =A0 =A0does not solve anything there. >> > 9.) Why is there a definition of a redirect page? Why are people >> > =A0 =A0restricted in it? Couldn't it just be avoided? >> > >> > My =A0conclusion is, that with that draft in action gopher is nothing = else >> > but a simplified HTTP with hacks and more unspecified behaviour. >> > >> > >> > Sincerely, >> > >> > Christoph Lohmann >> > >> > >> If caps and robots shouldn't be in the protocol specification, where >> does one standardise such things? =A0Several people actually >> Google-Doced that these things must be there. >> >> What I am seeking to do is take a snapshot of Gopher as currently >> used, and there's no question that caps and robots are currently used. >> >> If I were to implement your changes, there would be nothing left but >> effectively the 1991 version of gopher. >> Mr Carol, just whom do you agree with? Me or Mr Lohmann? -- = =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0/^\/^\ =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0\----| =A0 =A0_---'---~~~~-_ =A0 =A0 ~~~|~~L~|~~~~ =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0(/_ =A0/~~-- =A0 =A0 =A0\~ \ =A0/ =A0/~ =A0 =A0__~\ =A0~ / =A0 ~~----, =A0 =A0\ =A0 =A0| | =A0 =A0 =A0 / =A0\ =A0 =A0/| =A0 |/ =A0 =A0 =A0 | =A0 =A0| =A0 =A0| | | o =A0o =A0 =A0 /~ =A0 | =A0_-~_ =A0| =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0|| =A0\ =A0/ (// )) | o =A0o =A0 =A0\\---' //_- | =A0| =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0\ // =A0 |____|\______\__\ ~ =A0 =A0 =A0| =A0 / | =A0 =A0| =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0|_ / =A0 \ _| =A0 =A0 =A0/~___| =A0/____\ _______________________________________________ Gopher-Project mailing list Gopher-Project@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gopher-project Thread start (DIR) [gopher] Draft RFC (DIR) Followup: Re: [gopher] Draft RFC (DIR) Followup: Re: [gopher] Draft RFC