Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <p05010402b8e0b52ba209@[205.189.158.32]>
In-Reply-To: <54887CA6-5090-11D6-B04F-0003930BF072@complete.org>
References: <54887CA6-5090-11D6-B04F-0003930BF072@complete.org>
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 13:08:29 -0400
To: gopher@complete.org
From: Robert Hahn <rhahn@tenletters.com>
Subject: [gopher] Re: Views
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


>
>>  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.
>
>Indeed.  Already thought of that but have no idea how to do it :-)

The best idea I can come up with is this: assuming a gopher -> http 
gateway, we could put in a mod_perl script (for example) that parses 
gopher-formatted text and tweaks them a bit to generate html with 
tooltip support.  What I have in mind is that mousing over either the 
link or the icon would pop up a DHTML layer with the abstract 
contained w/in  (remember, tooltips for images is only supported in 
IE). If there's interest, I could whip up some template/supporting 
HTML code with indicators as to what you'd put where.  I already have 
90% of the code required sitting here in pieces. I can't contribute 
the script yet though - too little free time.

>  > Should the info come before or after the item?  Should there be a
>>  separate
>
>I'd say leave that up to the server or the admin.  I think it looks best
>after.  UMN gopherd's http server shows them after, FYI.

You might notice that most web search engines put the link first, and 
the abstract after...

My vote's to stick with that convention - although that begs the 
question: if a menu itself can have an abstract, I daresay it would 
look pretty funny to have a description following a group of links, 
and so you might want to have abstract first, links after in that 
case.

So as for implementation, I'd probably say "yeah, what he said", 
point to John and smile, and then hope fervently that those serving 
content won't do anything that breaks these conventions...

>  > The menu itself can have an abstract, which is what is displayed as the
>>  header.
>
>Ah, I like that thought a lot.

Would this mean that the info tag would become obsoleted?  There's 
very little that supports the distinction between the two if this is 
the kind of thing you have in mind for implementation...

-rh