On Saturday 31 August 2002 14:41, you wrote:
> So an alternate date format may make sense... how about > > /DATE at YYYYMMDD/SSK at ...? SSK at blah/blah at YYYYMMDD ? @ is reserved in > keys, > isn't it? This looks confusing to me. I wouldn't use the @ symbol. That already has a meaning. Whats wrong with: /__DATE__YYYYMMDD/SSK%40rBjVda8pC-Kq04jUurIAb8IzAGcPAgM/TFE// or maybe something like this since DBR's can have periods shorter than 1 day. /__DATE__YYYYMMDDHHMM/SSK%40rBjVda8pC-Kq04jUurIAb8IzAGcPAgM/TFE// It's just a matter of taste I guess. As long as you are not using "?" I don't really care how you do it. > > I want old-edition links to work without invoking click-through security, > because they represent no conceivable security risk above regular links. We definitely agree here. > The other possibility is to special case ?date=YYYYMMDD<end of URL> in the > parser. I don't like this idea for the reasons I outlined in my previous message. It's a slippery slope.... -- gj _______________________________________________ devl mailing list devl at freenetproject.org http://hawk.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
