Complete.Org: Mailing Lists: Archives: gopher: April 2007:
[gopher] Re: Mozilla bugs about Gopher, and a dangerous one
Home

[gopher] Re: Mozilla bugs about Gopher, and a dangerous one

[Top] [All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index] [Thread Index]
To: gopher@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gopher] Re: Mozilla bugs about Gopher, and a dangerous one
From: JumpJet Mailbox <jumpjetinfo@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2007 17:31:36 -0700 (PDT)
Reply-to: gopher@xxxxxxxxxxxx

Windows machines can easily tag Item Type mappings through file "extensions"; 
and so it is the Windows Server Operators duty to make sure that the 
appropriate extension is matched to the appropriate file type (i.e., he better 
not put ".TXT" as the extention of a Binary File).  Other operating systems use 
other methods to map files to appropriate Item Types.  But whether an OS uses 
extensions or not, is not the point I'm trying to make.  
What is important is that the Server maps the "Item Type" to APPROPRIATE files 
SOMEHOW.  HOW the Server or the Server Administrator does it is not the issue.  
If, for example, I attempt to download a Binary File, it should not be mapped 
as a Text File (or my Client will try to open a text reader rather than a 
download box).  
   
  The beauty of Gopher, and why it makes surfing easier than with other 
Protocols, is that a Client can be "dumb".  A Client doesn't have to worry 
about either "extensions" or "MIME" or anything else; because the Server will 
(should) take care of dealing with it for the Client.  
   
  "Aaron J. Angel" <thatoneguy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
  JumpJet Mailbox wrote:
> In my surfing I have noticed that not all Gopher Server Administrators
> are mapping all Item Types in their servers. Every file extension on
> their server should be EXPLICITLY mapped to an Item Type. Below are
> the standard Item Types understood by most Gopher Clients:
[snip]
> A concientious administrator should also include a listing of what they
> have mapped on their server.

Not all file systems make consistent (or indeed any) use of extensions. 
Take, for example, HFS from Mac, UFS or Ext2 from Unix/Linux based 
systems. Those file systems are completely agnostic to file extensions; 
they don't mean anything to anyone except the operator or user. The 
same is true with most URLs. Extensions don't matter. What gets spit 
out isn't always the same format as the input. (-:

-- 
Aaron J. Angel. You know, That One Guy! 
Visit me on the web at http://www.aaronjangel.us/.




       
---------------------------------
Ahhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell?
 Check outnew cars at Yahoo! Autos.



[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]