From: Cameron Kaiser <spectre@stockholm.ptloma.edu>
Message-Id: <200202120132.RAA11190@stockholm.ptloma.edu>
Subject: [gopher] Re: Gopher wishlist
In-Reply-To: <3C682904.BF4BE07D@sympatico.ca> from Ralph Furmaniak at "Feb 11,
 2 03:26:44 pm"
To: gopher@complete.org
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 17:32:56 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: gopher-bounce@complete.org
Errors-to: gopher-bounce@complete.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-to: gopher@complete.org


> Do we really have to stick to the gopher+ specs?  There are some things
> that could be done differently, or new features added to the protocol.
> We have practically all the maintainers of maintained gopher progs in
> this group so why can't we tinker with the protocol a bit?  If people
> have some ideas of things they would like to see in gopher, we can try
> to put these together.

I'm all for some expansion/tinkering with gopher+ since it *is* relatively
uncommon. David makes good points as well.

However, I'd like to really stress making sure that old gopher client
requests are honoured under whatever strategem is devised. The vast majority
of gopher users are still using a web browser, not a dedicated client.

-- 
----------------------------- personal page: http://www.armory.com/~spectre/ --
 Cameron Kaiser, Point Loma Nazarene University * ckaiser@stockholm.ptloma.edu
-- As a computer, I find your faith in technology amusing. --------------------