[gopher] Re: Need for protocol changey

[Benn Newman <newmanbe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, Jan 05, 2006 at 07:12:19AM -0600, Jeff wrote:
> On Wed, 04 Jan 2006 17:09:13 -0600, Benn Newman  
> <newmanbe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > I have heard a lot of suggestions of changes to Gopher; my question is,  
> > why?
> 
> To address the failings of gopher+.  Why are you opposed (if you are)?
You say there are failings of Gopher+, okay, fine. But what are we actually
trying to do by making changes to the protocol. How does Gopher benefit
from having MIME types being so integrated? As John pointed out
a Tar-gziped file could have any of number of MIME types but you can
always use extensions. I know that .tar.gz or .tgz means a gziped-tar file.
If I want to know a file size, there are perfectly good ways to do so in Gopher+
and in Gopher even. File sizes can be a part of the selectors info text
ex: 0Super cool  book (book.tgz 4kb)\tboot.tgz\tumn.edu\t7070

Feel free to convince me that protocol changes are needed, I haven't
stopped listening yet. *grin*
-- 
Benn Newman | newmanbe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx | gopher://igneous-rock.homeunix.net
Wisconsin Association of Gopher Operators
Learn about the Gopher Project: http://gopher.quux.org/Software/Gopher

-- Attached file included as plaintext by Ecartis --

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (NetBSD)

iEYEARECAAYFAkO9qZoACgkQFE65lPR8xrFnOwCcDAQgik36j2NPzUAz/ZXfBWOo
UW4AnRdYP+p2IhIHq2p8FVi80zMP7Uy1
=xliS
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----