---------------------------------------- Why I use Gophermaps July 01st, 2018 ---------------------------------------- maiki just asked why I use gophermaps for my phlog instead of plain text. I know others at bitreich [0] have commented on the practice with various opinions on why "misusing" gophermaps is bad. Plenty of people on gopher use plain text for their content and I am not going to complain. My choice is a product of style and philosophy. Style: One of the best things about hypertext is the ability to link contextually to relevant content. Gopher is missing this to a degree, but not entirely. We can't link a block of text inline like in HTML but we can link a line. That functionality is entirely limited to gophermaps, though. Without the gophermap the best we can do is include a text link and rely on the client to go above and beyond the protocol to enable interaction (like VF-1 so valiantly does). My choice, stylistically, was to take it upon myself to do a little extra work and build in the links directly into the content by making my phlogs a gophermap. I first announced this change [1] back in October of 2017 when I was still relatively new at this whole thing. In fact, I was piggybacking on the very bare-bones shell scripts that would later become burrow [2]. My first iteration was just a bunch of echo commands to a blank file and then launching vim [3]. These days I have the ability to edit existing phlog entries, generate in plain text or gophermaps, auto-generate RSS, and a bunch of other crap. Philosophy: From what I've seen over my time on gopher the biggest complaint about gophermaps for content isn't about the effort involved in creating them. Instead it's an argument for purity in the protocol. "Don't use the 'i' item type for this sort of thing," they say. "The 'i' type isn't even in RFC 1436!" And it's true. The type isn't defined in 1436, and it definitely isn't pure gopher as envisioned in the two-week sprint that a bunch of guys at the University of Minnesota did as much to stick it to the man (their school beauracracy) as they did to just get something out there for the community to react to. See, I don't see that as something to protect through purity. The mindset of those guys was to iterate, to share, to build, and to make the internet better. They didn't sit for years in planning before deploying the end-all-be-all of protocols. They cobbled together some crap on top of existing tools and made improvements. And that's what type "i" did later. It enabled us to write more description than would fit on one line so there was context to a link. That's what I see myself doing when I phlog. The links below (and now sometimes in-line) are given context by my post. If you're reading and say, "hey, I should check that out!" now you can. You just follow the link and boom, there you are. For those folks who don't bother with it and post in plain text, if I really want to chase down a link I can select it and manually enter it. It's more difficult, but it's doable. I hold no grudge against them for their choice. If you are new to gopher and just want to toss up markdown files that you're also using to generate a web version, go for it. I'll be more happy that you've decided to add content here than anything else. I'm certainly not going to berate your efforts by nit-picking on whether you use type 1 or type 0. DIR [0] bitreich.org DIR [1] New Format Test HTML [2] burrow TEXT [0] This is amazeballs