Re: itype 3 as generic status Re: To evolve or not to evolve

On 28/10/2022 06:05, Sean Conner wrote:
> It was thus said that the Great Mateusz Viste once stated:
>>
>> Such approach would prevent using the "3" line for redirecting the user
>> somewhere else, but maybe it's for the best, because a "3" line is not
>> supposed to be selectable in the first place,
> 
>    Where is this documented?  I can't find anything about error handling at
> all in RFC-1436, exccept to document that type '3' is an error.  Nothing
> about what a server should return in case of an error.

As far as I know this is not documented anywhere in any precise manner. 
The RFC 1436 states only that '3' "signals an error condition". The 
wording (esp. comparing to other entries described as "items") loosely 
implies that it is some sort of inline error message string.

It is worth noting that even the widely used "i" type is not part of the 
RFC, and neither does it appear in the gopher plus draft. BTW I'd be 
curious to know when exactly "i" became a thing... Is there any 
archeological evidence about that?

Mateusz