On Tuesday, April 14, 2015 at 2:51:32 PM UTC-7, Cameron Kaiser wrote: > Candidly, and not because I still run such a site, I've always found > Gopher to be a better fit for resource-constrained computing. The > Commodore 128 sitting next to me does very well for that because the > protocol and menu parsing conventions are incredibly trivial. Certainly true on a "how well can it keep up?" level, but unfortunately precious few sites support Gopher these days, so while it may be a better fit it offers vastly more constricted access to online resources. _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
- Re: Intent to deprecate: Insecure HTTP stuart
- Re: Intent to deprecate: Insecure HTTP ipartola
- Re: Intent to deprecate: Insecure HTTP Joseph Lorenzo Hall
- Re: Intent to deprecate: Insecure HTTP Joshua Cranmer 🐧
- Re: Intent to deprecate: Insecure HTTP Eric Shepherd
- Re: Intent to deprecate: Insecure HTTP Richard Barnes
- Re: Intent to deprecate: Insecure HT... Eric Shepherd
- Re: Intent to deprecate: Insecure HT... connor . behan
- Re: Intent to deprecate: Insecure HT... Cameron Kaiser
- Re: Intent to deprecate: Insecu... commodorejohn
- Re: Intent to deprecate: In... Cameron Kaiser
- Re: Intent to deprecate: Insecure HTTP Gervase Markham
- Re: Intent to deprecate: Insecure HTTP bryan . beicker
- Re: Intent to deprecate: Insecure HTTP Boris Zbarsky
- Re: Intent to deprecate: Insecure HTTP Richard Barnes
- Re: Intent to deprecate: Insecure HTTP Eugene
- Re: Intent to deprecate: Insecure HTTP Martin Thomson
- Re: Intent to deprecate: Insecure HTTP Richard Barnes
- Re: Intent to deprecate: Insecure HTTP northrupthebandgeek
- Re: Intent to deprecate: Insecure HTTP imfasterthanneutrino