Re: Visual navigation possibilities with GopherVR for Macintosh and Unix (fwd)

Jill Foster <Jill.Foster@newcastle.ac.uk> Tue, 04 April 1995 13:52 UTC

Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa00915; 4 Apr 95 9:52 EDT
Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa00911; 4 Apr 95 9:52 EDT
Received: from norn.ncl.ac.uk by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa06159; 4 Apr 95 9:52 EDT
Received: by norn.mailbase.ac.uk id <NAA10413@norn.mailbase.ac.uk> (8.6.11/ for mailbase.ac.uk); Tue, 4 Apr 1995 13:44:55 +0100
Received: from cheviot.ncl.ac.uk by norn.mailbase.ac.uk id <NAA10362@norn.mailbase.ac.uk> (8.6.11/ for mailbase.ac.uk) with ESMTP; Tue, 4 Apr 1995 13:44:27 +0100
Received: from burnmoor.ncl.ac.uk by cheviot.ncl.ac.uk id <NAA15970@cheviot.ncl.ac.uk> (8.6.10/ for ncl.ac.uk) with SMTP; Tue, 4 Apr 1995 13:44:23 +0100
Received: from tuda.ncl.ac.uk (tuda.ncl.ac.uk [128.240.2.1]) by burnmoor.ncl.ac.uk (8.6.11/8.6.10-cf revision 2 for Solaris 2.x) with ESMTP id NAA06965; Tue, 4 Apr 1995 13:44:22 +0100
Received: from [199.92.189.242] (ietf-242.ietf.org [199.92.189.242]) by tuda.ncl.ac.uk (8.6.10/8.6.10-cf revision 1 for SunOS 4.1.x) with SMTP id NAA15366; Tue, 4 Apr 1995 13:43:54 +0100
Date: Tue, 4 Apr 1995 13:43:54 +0100
X-Sender: njf@burnmoor.ncl.ac.uk (Unverified)
Message-Id: <v02110109aba59e3f4d29@[199.92.189.243]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: "C.K.Work" <C.K.Work@soton.ac.uk>, nir@mailbase.ac.uk
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Jill Foster <Jill.Foster@newcastle.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: Visual navigation possibilities with GopherVR for Macintosh and Unix (fwd)
X-List: nir@mailbase.ac.uk
Reply-To: Jill Foster <Jill.Foster@newcastle.ac.uk>
X-Orig-Sender: nir-request@mailbase.ac.uk
Precedence: list

At 1:21 pm 3/4/95, C.K.Work wrote:
>Speaking from a site which has just committed to WWW (more or less
>bypassing Gopher) I'm intrigued to see that such effort is being put
>into Gopher - the implicatation of the Jill's message is that gopher & WWW are
>alternate routes to the same end. Unless I'm misunderstanding things,
>this is not the case. WWW as a technology surely offers much more than
>Gopher can - both now, but perhaps more importantly in terms of scope
>for development. At present Gopher space is effectively a subset of Web
>space, and this will remain the case until Gopher clients can read html
>(in which case won't they be Web clients?).

I don't want to get into this argument - but there are those who believe
gopher is the way to go and those that think WWW is. No point in arguing -
it's like the mailing list v net news arguments. Both have their pros and
cons and both have their followers.

I believe there are URL savvy gopher clients too.

It isn't black and white as to what is best. We're still moving more and
more to WWW with Mailbase (from gopher) - but gopher still has a great deal
of development effort going into it. All I'm saying is that it's worth
keeping an eye on it still.


-- Jill