Date: Sun, 01 Jan 2006 08:27:25 -0600
To: gopher@complete.org
Subject: [gopher] Re: PyGopherd and Gopher+
References: <20051231155642.GA9489@SDF.LONESTAR.ORG>
 <20051231164643.GB28740@katherina.lan.complete.org>
 <20051231173023.GA2684@SDF.LONESTAR.ORG>
From: Jeff <geph@nerdshack.com>
Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <op.s2pefzakvbderv@wybotnnas01-pool0-a14.wybotn.tds.net>
In-Reply-To: <20051231173023.GA2684@SDF.LONESTAR.ORG>
User-Agent: Opera M2/8.51 (Win32, build 7712)
Sender: gopher-bounce@complete.org
Errors-to: gopher-bounce@complete.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-to: gopher@complete.org

On Sat, 31 Dec 2005 11:30:23 -0600, Benn Newman  
<newmanbe@sdf.lonestar.org> wrote:

> On Sat, Dec 31, 2005 at 10:46:43AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
>> On Sat, Dec 31, 2005 at 09:56:42AM -0600, Benn Newman wrote:
>> Hmm, who are all these client people? ;-)
> Jeff P., the developed for GopherJ. :)

>> [..]
>> It's rather complex in some cases and there are a lot of
>> special cases.

   I think gopher+ stinks anyway.  Instead of opening a new connection to  
fetch the new (mostly undefined) attributes it would have been easier to  
keep reserving extra tabspaces in the menus for simple things like  
mimetype and filesize.  My reason for not adding gopher+ to GopherJ is  
that it doesn't compliment the original protocol.  And as Mr. Goerzen  
said, it's not very gophery.

Why don't we write a new spec which would supercede gopher+?

-- 
Jeff