From: Ralph Furmaniak <sugaku@sympatico.ca>
To: gopher@complete.org
Subject: [gopher] Re: The handling of +ABSTRACT
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 11:45:43 EDT
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-Id: 
 <20020415154543.HXHJ3414.tomts6-srv.bellnexxia.net@[209.226.175.22]>
Sender: gopher-bounce@complete.org
Errors-to: gopher-bounce@complete.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-to: gopher@complete.org


Anything extra in the cap or link files are treated as gopher+ attributes currently.
I was always wondering how gopherd allows users to set up mutiple views.  I just set it up so that you put the files into `filename.dir` and put `filename` in the gophermap/link/cap/whatever.  I think this is the easiest way for publishers.  gopher0 and http requests for `filename` are given a menu.

I would support the use of abstracts, it should make a cleaner display, especially for filesystem- or tree- based clients.  Also, in the http version these could be hidden until the person passes the mouse over the item.

Should the info come before or after the item?  Should there be a separate attribute for each of these?

The menu itself can have an abstract, which is what is displayed as the header.