Re: OT: rude behaviour

I'm not sure I see your point and re-reading your response I'd even say =
we're on the same side. I wouldn't expect a DEC vt510 from 1993 to =
render my Gopher hole as I intended in 2025 any more than I would expect =
Mosaic to properly render YouTube. and what does it matter what =
character set I use when you immediately state that Gopher has no way of =
knowing or even caring?

a better question would be what browser or software I use and how could =
your browser or software better handle edge cases.

on your last point, I'm not sure how I could actively harm a corpse... =
weird pleasure on the other hand? probably for another mailing list.


regards

=E2=96=88=E2=96=84=E2=96=80=E2=96=84=E2=96=80  cat K.
=E2=96=88=E2=96=80=E2=96=84=E2=96=80=E2=96=84  B 4 U D W 3 R K 5 _
=E2=96=84=E2=96=84=E2=96=80=E2=96=80=E2=96=80  +1 (929) 601-BAUD

> On 15 Nov 2025, at 7:42=E2=80=AFAM, John Goerzen =
<[email protected]> wrote:
>=20
> On Sat, Nov 15 2025, cat K. wrote:
>=20
>> while you are correct that the i in Gopher's itemtypes has been =
displayed by
>> most clients for the past 20 years if you know your history you'll =
also know
>> it's also not RFC compliant, it was not covered in the original spec =
and just
>=20
> The RFC was never adopted as a standard (it was informational) and I
> don't believe there has ever been a point in time where Gopher =
behavior
> in practice was limited by RFC.
>=20
> Just to name some examples - by 1992, which is before the RFC was
> published, UMN gopher supported item types s, e, c, g, h, and M which
> were not in the RFC.  Just to note, the same people that worked on UMN
> gopher were the authors of RFC1436, so it's not that they weren't =
aware
> of the state of Gopher. =20
>=20
> UMN gopher supported 'i' by at least January 1994, but the changelogs
> imply it was earlier in the gopher 2.0 development cycle that it was
> added.  I simply don't have the earlier 2.0 releases.
>=20
>> maybe I should have been more succinct in saying most Gopher browsers =
do render
>> it but don't handle or display it correctly. some ignore the escape =
and just
>=20
> That's a bit of a stretch.  What character set do you use?  Note that
> Gopher has no way of indicating that, and predates the wide usage of
> Unicode.
>=20
> Terminals now, and more notably then, do not have a uniform set of
> standards on how to address color, underline, etc., nor even a uniform
> set of capabilities in that way.
>=20
> No matter what client I use, if I pull up that on my DEC vt510 it is
> unlikely to display like you intended.
>=20
> Basically, I think trying to argue whether something is "correct" =
based
> on a protocol from 1994 that was implemented by de facto consensus
> rather than committee-based standard is not going to get anyone
> anywhere.  Then as now, some clients displayed type i and some didn't.
>=20
> Neither was wrong.
>=20
> As a side note, at the moment I can't tell if you are actively trying =
to
> harm the Gopher community or get some weird pleasure pointless
> arguments.  In either case, I'd kindly ask you reflect on your =
behavior
> and whether it is really serving the ends you state you want to see.
>=20
> John