Complete.Org: Mailing Lists: Archives: gopher: February 2009:
[gopher] Re: Anouncement: A New Version of Gopher Client

[gopher] Re: Anouncement: A New Version of Gopher Client

[Top] [All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index] [Thread Index]
To: gopher@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gopher] Re: Anouncement: A New Version of Gopher Client
From: JumpJet Mailbox <jumpjetinfo@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 17:51:38 -0800 (PST)
Reply-to: gopher@xxxxxxxxxxxx

Will someone EVER test ALL the old Gopher Clients???   Everyone just keeps 
GUESSING what the old clients will or won't do; but all anyone has to do is 
load them on their computer (they are ALL on HAL3000) and FIND OUT if they work 
or not!!!  
An absolutely Great, and Badly Needed project for someone who wants to 
contribute to Gopher, would be to create a review for each of these Clients 
(and Servers), and send the results to Chris at HAL3000 (so he can post them in 
the "Begin_Here" directory).  Then we all can speak specifically by name 
(rather than generically) as to what Client will or won't do something; so we 
can then efficiently move forward with improving the Gopher Protocol.

--- On Tue, 2/17/09, Cameron Kaiser <spectre@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

From: Cameron Kaiser <spectre@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [gopher] Re: Anouncement: A New Version of Gopher Client
To: gopher@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Tuesday, February 17, 2009, 3:49 PM

> > It's sort of HTTP/HTML with none of the advantages. I'd rather
work in
> > HTML than RTF, although I suppose at the time RTF was more developed
> > had more markup features.
> If I understand correctly the advantage they saw in RTF is
> text+images=1 file -> you only have to fetch the information from the
> server once. With html you would need to download the images
> separately.

Okay, I'll buy that. We still don't have full use of the data: URI even
now, so +1.

> > The real question would be if it degraded gracefully (i.e., a regular
> > gopher menu for every RTF menu), which I haven't investigated. If
it did,
> > then I *would* call that an advantage, but I imagine that was not
> > of the spec.
> I don't think they were thinking about that. This sort of menus
> work at all in any other Gopher+ client - they just display lots of
> error lines.

No, I mean some sort of mechanism to degrade for older clients (i.e., the
older client doesn't see or even request the RTF menu). I guess that could
be done through the normal Gopher+ VIEWS method however.

------------------------------------ personal: --
  Cameron Kaiser * Floodgap Systems * * ckaiser@xxxxxxxxxxxx
-- Do you think I could buy back my introduction to you? -- Groucho Marx ------


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