[gopher] Re: Establishment of .gopher TLD

["Matthew Holevinski" <eylusion@xxxxxxxxx>]

Well we could always abbreviate it to just .gop :))
but then again, someone might take offense.

Matt

On Sat, Aug 2, 2008 at 8:46 PM,  <brian@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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
>
>
>