Complete.Org: Mailing Lists: Archives: gopher: August 2008:
[gopher] Re: Establishment of .gopher TLD
Home

[gopher] Re: Establishment of .gopher TLD

[Top] [All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index] [Thread Index]
To: gopher@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gopher] Re: Establishment of .gopher TLD
From: brian@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Sat, 2 Aug 2008 20:46:23 -0500
Reply-to: gopher@xxxxxxxxxxxx

On Sat, Aug 02, 2008 at 09:04:46PM -0500, Kyevan wrote:
> What's your reasoning for that? I mean, Gopher should be primary, but I 
> don't see an issue with, say, turning on the http access in pygopherd or 
> using some other proxy, or running sshd for remote administration, or such.

Kyevan, permit me to post the same response to another individual who
raised the same question:

    Good point...although while I've heard of "gopherspace," I've not           
    heard of "httpspace," "ftpspace,", "telnetspace," etc.                      
                                                          
    There's nothing stopping the introduction of protocol-based TLDs...but      
    I think motivation is important:  My desire to introduce .gopher is to      
    help reinvigorate the movement to bring gopher back to the masses.          
    The http protocol doesn't need such a boost, neither does ftp, telnet,      
    smtp, etc.

> Except ICANN's .biz, last I looked. This may have changed now that 
> PacRoot is dead, though.

OpenNIC had .biz before ICANN laid claim to it.  So we consider it a collider

> Except that whatever:// is actually for the client only, so it knows if 
> it needs to send a gopher selectorm http's multitude of headers, 
> negotiate an ssh connection, or fire up Unreal Tournament for a 
> deathmatch ;)

But clients could take advantage of a .gopher TLD if they were
configured to do so, so the point is valid, just not in the context of
most (all?) current browsers.

  --Brian



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