Message-ID: <478A9D34.3010505@aaronjangel.us>
Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2008 17:22:28 -0600
From: "Aaron J. Angel" <thatoneguy@aaronjangel.us>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Windows/20071031)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: gopher@complete.org
Subject: [gopher] Re: Server Contact Information
References: <453206.72344.qm@web35501.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	 <231121.28533.qm@web35512.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
 <f7cf70a70801130857s60f0adabt7dae3e9a5ab99ac9@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <f7cf70a70801130857s60f0adabt7dae3e9a5ab99ac9@mail.gmail.com>
Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: gopher-bounce@complete.org
Errors-to: gopher-bounce@complete.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-to: gopher@complete.org

Avery M. wrote:
> Is this part of the Gopher standard or did you invent it just now?
>   

Invented.  The document referenced is a proposal.  A few comments about 
the referenced document...

The inability to embed links into a document is not the fault of the 
protocol, but a fact of that document's format.  One can easily serve a 
Hypertext document on a Gopher site and links will work just fine.

Also, Gopher *can* "associate a freeform label directly with a file"; 
this is done in the menu.

There's also a standard mechanism to identify attributes of Gopher items 
using Gopher+, e.g., +INFO, +ADMIN, +ABSTRACT blocks, effectively making 
the proposal unnecessary.