New issue
Advanced search Search tips
Note: Color blocks (like or ) mean that a user may not be available. Tooltip shows the reason.

Issue 11345 link

Starred by 30 users

Issue metadata

Status: WontFix
Owner:
Closed: Nov 2009
Cc:
Components:
EstimatedDays: ----
NextAction: ----
OS: All
Pri: 2
Type: Feature

Restricted
  • Only users with Commit permission may comment.



Sign in to add a comment

gopher protocol doesn't work

Reported by hotaru.f...@gmail.com, May 2 2009

Issue description

Chrome Version       : 2.0.177.1 (Official Build 14854)
URLs (if applicable) : gopher://gopher.floodgap.com/, gopher://port70.net/
Other browsers tested: firefox, lynx, 
Add OK or FAIL after other browsers where you have tested this issue:
     Safari 4: FAIL
  Firefox 3.x: OK
         IE 7: FAIL
         IE 8: FAIL

What steps will reproduce the problem?
1. try to visit any gopher url

What is the expected result?
a gopher menu is displayed

What happens instead?
a google search results page is displayed

Please provide any additional information below. Attach a screenshot if
possible.

 

Comment 1 by prog...@gmail.com, May 2 2009

that's sad :( (for nostalgic reasons)

but it's not really worth implementing a dead protocol IMO :/
it's not a dead protocol, i use it all the time.

fixing http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=11359 would at least make it 
possible to make chrome use the floodgap public gopher proxy 
(http://gopher.floodgap.com/gopher/) for gopher urls, by doing this:
navigator.registerProtocolHandler('gopher','http://gopher.floodgap.com/gopher/gw.lite?
%s','Floodgap Public Gopher Proxy');

Comment 3 by prog...@gmail.com, May 3 2009

it's not really the place to ask this but... i must ;)

>i use it all the time.
for what exactly? the only use i can think of is...teach yourself a history lesson

just curious
Would like to see gopher in Chrome!
Labels: -Type-Bug -Area-Misc Type-Feature Area-BrowserBackend
Assigning for triage.

Comment 6 by eroman@chromium.org, Nov 20 2009

Status: WontFix
I don't think we should implement gopher -- other clients can be used for that purpose.

Sure other clients can be used for that, but I want to use Chromium for it :D

Comment 8 by Deleted ...@, Dec 14 2009

I corroborate this; gopher is seeing a renaissance as a mod_autoindex on steroids.
Labels: -Area-BrowserBackend Area-Internals

Comment 10 by ad...@shiftout.com, Nov 11 2010

I would like to see Gopher implemented in Chromium. Our University's Computing Science Society operates a gopher server for clean access to our resources without all that HTML/CSS clutter. Lack of Gopher support is a barrier for me, and many others that I know of, in being able to switch to Chromium from Firefox.

Comment 11 by nuno...@gmail.com, Nov 12 2010

This, after all, should depend on whether the people in charge want chromium to be just a web browser or to support some other protocols which are, well, browsable, like FTP and gopher. 

It could also depend on the protocol complexity (and thus the effort needed to code and maintain it), but I think that's not an issue with gopher, as one of its acclaimed features is being simple.

But I'm worried with the comment made by eroman@chromium.org: if "other clients can be used for that purpose" is a valid reason to refuse a protocol, then why does Chromium support FTP? There are other clients for that, too!
If you want to use gopher, I suggest you use a browser plugin, for example:

http://gopher.floodgap.com/overbite/

Note that even Firefox has dropped support for Gopher in Firefox 4:

https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=388195

While I appreciate that there are users out there for whom built-in gopher support would be useful, overall gopher is on the decline and simply isn't a big part of web experience. The modern web is about HTTP, and that is where Chromium's development should be focused.

(As for FTP, that was important for compatibility with existing sites, many of which serve subrecources off FTP but still in the regular HTML workflow. For example numerous download sites still redirect to FTP locations).

Comment 13 by nuno...@gmail.com, Nov 12 2010

@eroman:

Thanks for your clarification, now I understand your decision. (I have nothing against it, I just needed a "deeper" explanation.)

So the way to go is to wait for a "native" gopher client version of overbite (currently it tunnels the request through a gopher proxy), use it and then hope the gopherspace grows enough so that gopher support has to be added to Chromium :-)
While it's true FF 4 dropped support, it's also true an extension supporting gopher has been developed.

Maybe it's what should be done here? I don't know nothing about Chrome Extensions, but would be possible to create an extension to give Gopher support for Chrome?

Comment 15 by ad...@shiftout.com, Nov 13 2010

It's true that other clients are available, but by adding support to
Chromium, it keeps all the web activities in the same client. I'm
often browsing pages via HTTP then Gopher then HTTP then Gopher again
just following links. It's a lot of hassle to keep switching clients
when really, they logically follow on from each other.

-- 

Comment 16 by nuno...@gmail.com, Nov 16 2010

Just curious: Even if the developers choose not to write code for a gopher client part, if someone else writes a patch to add gopher support to the core, and you (devs) get some volunteer(s) to maintain the code, would you accept the patch?
I think people can always fork the code to add some features you want since it is a free and open-source project, isn't it?

Comment 18 by nuno...@gmail.com, Nov 17 2010

Yes, that's for granted, the right to fork'n'branch. (DISCLAIMER: And with it comes the great responsibility of knowing when it's a good idea or not.)

But if it was made in the main branch, it'd give us a gopher-enabled official Chromium! :-)

Actually, I'd like to have the time to look at the code and add gopher. I just doubt I have the time and the knowledge.

Comment 19 by Deleted ...@, Nov 18 2010

|I don't think we should implement gopher -- other clients can be used for that purpose.
Why support http? Other clients can be used for that purpose!

Comment 20 by Deleted ...@, Aug 23 2011

Linux is gopher friendly. Just few clicks and ready to go. No gopher - no chrome on my home computer.

Comment 21 by Deleted ...@, Nov 14 2011

There is an extension that adds Gopher support for chrome.
http://gopher.floodgap.com/overbite/

Comment 22 by nuno...@gmail.com, Nov 14 2011

AFAIK, Overbite does *not* add Gopher support, it works around the lack of support by rewriting gopher URLs as web URLs pointing to a gopher-to-web gateway.

Still, even if Overbite was able to add real Gopher support, I guess we would still have a bug report for the request to add that support to the browser itself.
I'm using Gopher protocol too.
There search engine in gopherspace to search thourg RFC documents.

Comment 24 by emeu...@gmail.com, May 1 2012

Perhaps http://gopherproxy.meulie.net/ can help you out? It doesn't look
like native Gopher support will ever return to Chrome...

  Evert
On May 1, 2012 9:52 AM, <chromium@googlecode.com> wrote:

Comment 25 by Deleted ...@, May 7 2012

IMHO Gopher is awesome, and if more people used it it would significantly decrease global bandwidth usage, being much simpler than HTML. I use it a lot at home and Uni, for file sharing and stuff. In a way it is nostalgic, but just because it is old doesn't mean it has had its time. And, it is a real pain in the ass that chrome doesn't support it. Perhaps if when you first visited a gopher URL it prompted you to install an add-on, so that chrome is not weighed down by the protocol for those not aware of the gopherspere.
Project Member

Comment 26 by bugdroid1@chromium.org, Oct 13 2012

Labels: Restrict-AddIssueComment-Commit
This issue has been closed for some time. No one will pay attention to new comments.
If you are seeing this bug or have new data, please click New Issue to start a new bug.
Project Member

Comment 27 by bugdroid1@chromium.org, Mar 10 2013

Labels: -Area-Internals Cr-Internals

Sign in to add a comment