Re: [gopher] Mime under Nine
On 2012-05-21, Denis Bernard wrote:
> So, the idea to introduce the Mime type in the Gopher protocol is
> not recent! Please, read the Gopher+ description at:
>
> gopher://gophernicus.org/0/doc/gopher/gopher+.txt
>
> If the idea of Damien of using a mimed file is not convenient from
> client side, the idea of providing to the client the mime type needed
> to apply the proper process for a given file is already described and
> implemented to day: Gopher+ protocol! Implementation of Gopher+ in a
> modern graphical client is up to you. There is no need to reinvent a
> new Gopher protocol!
There have been two different MIME-related topics discussed here:
serving MIME-format data (just like an MIME e-mail) and giving
file type information for a selector using the MIME type.
The first makes sense to distribute less common file types under an
unified, text-based format, which enables the MIME-type information to
be passed around with it. But this requires that the client software is
able to understand this data format, and would require the client to
parse and extract the file from the MIME-encapsulated data.
The other idea that was mentioned here involves somehow giving the MIME
*type* of a selector, is it through some informative line, a special
request or an additional gopher menu field. That is, the data is
transferred the same way it was, but now the client has a way to get the
type too.
Some of these latter ideas are 100% compatible with older clients (such
as the menu entry, which would (or should be, per the original RFC)
simply ignored by all clients out there which are unaware of said field.
One could, for example, add the MIME-type field to itemtype 9 in order
to allow eventual MIME-type field-aware clients to decide what to do
with the file.
Now, as for gopher+, I'd say -- I may be wrong here, but that's the idea
I got -- that gopher+ is not that widely used, and that people dislike
the way it extends the gopher protocol.
The fact someone once did it in gopher+ doesn't mean anyone else now has
to do it the gopher+ way.
After all, in your example, the MIME-type field would have given you the
extended type information along with the menu, with no need for
additional requests, while I believe gopher+ involves some more
round-trips.
(Actually, IIRC the "Views" entry is not *the* type of the document, but
the *list* of available types, and you may have several types there,
which have to be requested using a gopher+ request.)
--
Nuno J. Silva (aka njsg)
gopher://sdf-eu.org/1/users/njsg
http://njsg.sdf-eu.org/
_______________________________________________
Gopher-Project mailing list
Gopher-Project@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gopher-project
Reply to: