Received: with LISTAR (v1.0.0; list gopher); Mon, 11 Feb 2002 15:27:44 -0500 (EST) Return-Path: <sugaku@sympatico.ca> Delivered-To: gopher@complete.org Received: from tomts16-srv.bellnexxia.net (tomts16.bellnexxia.net [209.226.175.4]) by pi.glockenspiel.complete.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 462BB3B8A3 for <gopher@complete.org>; Mon, 11 Feb 2002 15:27:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from sympatico.ca ([64.228.192.69]) by tomts16-srv.bellnexxia.net (InterMail vM.4.01.03.23 201-229-121-123-20010418) with ESMTP id <20020211202743.ENJJ23163.tomts16-srv.bellnexxia.net@sympatico.ca> for <gopher@complete.org>; Mon, 11 Feb 2002 15:27:43 -0500 Message-ID: <3C682904.BF4BE07D@sympatico.ca> Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 15:26:44 -0500 From: Ralph Furmaniak <sugaku@sympatico.ca> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Gopher-L <gopher@complete.org> Subject: [gopher] Gopher wishlist Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-archive-position: 423 X-listar-version: Listar v1.0.0 Sender: gopher-bounce@complete.org Errors-to: gopher-bounce@complete.org X-original-sender: sugaku@sympatico.ca Precedence: bulk Reply-to: gopher@complete.org List-help: <mailto:listar@complete.org?Subject=help> List-unsubscribe: <mailto:gopher-request@complete.org?Subject=unsubscribe> List-software: Listar version 1.0.0 X-List-ID: Gopher <gopher.complete.org> List-subscribe: <mailto:gopher-request@complete.org?Subject=subscribe> List-owner: <mailto:jgoerzen@complete.org> List-post: <mailto:gopher@complete.org> List-archive: <http://www.complete.org/mailinglists/archives/> X-list: gopher

Do we really have to stick to the gopher+ specs? There are some things that could be done differently, or new features added to the protocol. We have practically all the maintainers of maintained gopher progs in this group so why can't we tinker with the protocol a bit? If people have some ideas of things they would like to see in gopher, we can try to put these together.

For example we could allow actual linking to http servers, just like you can link to telnet, ftp, and other resources.

Also, we could change around the ASK structure, some people were talking/complaining about it earlier.

It would be nice if we could put in some redundant/backup/mirror server capabilities, so the same resource could come from multiple servers. Slashdot protection!

We could also put some information into headers, similarly to what http does. This would also be a good place to put in the server information (abstracts?). You could also request a specific chunk of a file, so that you can resume failed downloads.

Any other ideas?