Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <p05010407b8e0ee8a1cdc@[205.189.158.32]>
In-Reply-To: 
 <20020415205042.ERIN6268.tomts24-srv.bellnexxia.net@[209.226.175.22]>
References: 
 <20020415205042.ERIN6268.tomts24-srv.bellnexxia.net@[209.226.175.22]>
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 17:04:24 -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


If you're open to changing the spec, then perhaps it should be up to 
the client to specify what's 'preferred'.  How can the server know 
what a client wants, really?

In that case, the harder question to ask is: how can a client tell 
the server what's preferred?

I don't have the spec handy right now, but can we have it so that 
clicking 'pyramid' results in the server sending a list of extensions 
(in the form of a gophermenu) to the client, then the client secretly 
(w.r.t. the user) re-opening a new request for the preferred format, 
or, if the client doesn't know, ask the user their preference before 
opening the second request?  IOW, put the intelligence in the 
client...

Maybe this idea doesn't change the spec...

-rh

>  > I like it!  How do you define which view is the default, though?  (In
>>  Gopher+ parlance, the "preferred" view)
>
>Currently there is no way to change the order, it's just simple 
>FIFO.  Doesn't the umn client choose it's own default?
>
>Any suggestions on how to do this?  You could put it into one of the 
>special config files.  Or you could prepend/append something to the 
>filename.  Prepending a number will already work since it is 
>alphabetic, and the actual filename of the request does not matter 
>much.
>
>
>Does anyone think gopher+ should be changed in this respect? In the 
>previous example gopher+ clients would see `pyramid` with multiple 
>views.  When someone downloads it would it just be called `pyramid`? 
>The downloaded file would need to have an extension, especially if 
>the user downlaods multiple views.  The client could try to 
>reverse-engineer the extension, but this still can lead to problems.
>
>Including something about the extension would also make it easier 
>for the server to find the requested view.