Complete.Org: Mailing Lists: Archives: gopher: July 2008:
[gopher] Re: Item Type Suggestions

[gopher] Re: Item Type Suggestions

[Top] [All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index] [Thread Index]
To: gopher@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gopher] Re: Item Type Suggestions
From: JumpJet Mailbox <jumpjetinfo@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2008 13:24:58 -0700 (PDT)
Reply-to: gopher@xxxxxxxxxxxx

Agreed.  Keep types "0" to "9" and "i" only (throwing most everything under 
type 9, including text files with extra control code suff such as DOC and RTF, 
even though they CAN be read in a text reader... try it yourself), and 
depreciate all other types (including "h" - html, "g" - gif, and "I" - 
Is this Item Type system favorable to everyone?  If so, I will reconfigure my 
server now.
--- On Tue, 7/8/08, Mate Nagy <k-zed@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

From: Mate Nagy <k-zed@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [gopher] Re: Item Type Suggestions
To: gopher@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Tuesday, July 8, 2008, 10:35 AM

On Tue, Jul 08, 2008 at 08:27:28AM -0600, Jay Nemrow wrote:
> I am really against anything besides true text files being classified
> 0.  Neither DOC nor RTF files are text files and would break all existing
> gopher clients.
 fully agree
> I much prefer putting almost everything under 9, just because older
> clients will do something that is very acceptable - it will download
> and store the file as a binary, which any viewer an handle.
 also fully agree.
 Binary files (doc, mp3, rtf, what have you) are binary files. Let the
user handle them. IMHO, even building in movie playing support or any
other sophisticated file type discovery into a gopher client is
overdoing it (except for image types, which is often handled by image
loading libs).
 Let's keep the ease of implementation of clients in mind (that's one
(or *the*) massive advantage of the gopher protocol).



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