Message-ID: <20040305150150.47489.qmail@web60207.mail.yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2004 07:01:50 -0800 (PST)
From: "William G. Davis" <william_gordon_davis@yahoo.com>
Subject: [gopher] Re: Gopher+ Clarification
To: gopher@complete.org
In-Reply-To: <20040305045606.GA46508@wumpus-cave.net>
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

Yes.

--- Timm Murray <tmurray-gopher@wumpus-cave.net>
wrote:
> From the Gopher+ document:
> 
> ----
> A lot of folks need ability to retrieve and display
> pictures, but there is no real consensus on ONE
> format
> for these pictures.  We don't want to define a type
> character for every oddball  picture type.  Gopher+
> handles Pictures, Movies, and Sounds  by defining
> three item types: ":" for bitmap images, ";" for
> movies, and "<" for sounds (originally I, M, and S
> were suggested, but they  were informally in use in
> other ways; the only thing magic   about ":", ";",
> and
> "<", is that they are the first  characters after
> '9')
> ----
> 
> When I first read this, I had thought the ':' type
> was specifically 
> refering to bitmap images of the .BMP veriety.  In
> other words, the 
> raw, uncompressed image data.  But on re-reading it,
> it seems that 
> it's actually implying a deprecation of the  'g' and
> 'I' types 
> ("We don't want to define a type character for every
> oddball picture 
> type.") and using only ':' for images, compressed or
> not, and letting 
> the MIME type be more specific.
> 
> This seems like a much saner way to go about it.  Is
> this the correct 
> interpretation of the above?
> 
> 


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Search - Find what you’re looking for faster
http://search.yahoo.com