Re: Gopher over TLS

It was thus said that the Great Sean Conner once stated:
>   Well, neither are types 'i' or h' or the URL: selector  hack, yet they're
> in wide use today.  Just because it's not in the RFC doesn't mean we can't
> care about it.

Sorry didn't had this in my mind. First, I'm not into Gopher+. I only 
know that it offers metadata communication.
If a Gopher+ server implements Gopher over TLS it would also need to 
implement the extra flag. What would be the point in implementing Gopher 
over TLS without all standards.

I think you're point is if this is compatible to Gopher+.
The short answer is probably no because of the extra flag we talked 
about earlier. The long answer is that if Gopher+ server & clients 
implement TLS support, they should implement the protocol completely.

Gopher over TLS shouldn't exclude (some kind of) Gopher+ integration but 
also we shouldn't focus to much on Gopher+. An internet without 
standards in simply not possible.

Cheers,
Emil

Am 16.03.20 um 22:36 schrieb Sean Conner:
> It was thus said that the Great Emil Engler once stated:
>> I agree with the stream hack, it isn't really beautiful.
>> To the point of Gopher+. It isn't an official RFC standard therefore we
>> shouldn't really care about it IMO.
> 
>    Well, neither are types 'i' or h' or the URL: selector  hack, yet they're
> in wide use today.  Just because it's not in the RFC doesn't mean we can't
> care about it.
> 
>    -spc
>