On Saturday 31 August 2002 20:07, you wrote:
> > On Sat, Aug 31, 2002 at 08:39:42PM -0400, Gianni Johansson wrote:
> > On Saturday 31 August 2002 14:41, you wrote:
> > > So an alternate date format may make sense... how about
> > >
> > > /DATE at MMDD/SSK at ...? SSK at blah/blah at MMDD
On Saturday 31 August 2002 14:41, you wrote:
> So an alternate date format may make sense... how about
>
> /DATE at MMDD/SSK at ...? SSK at blah/blah at MMDD ? @ is reserved in
> keys,
> isn't it?
This looks confusing to me. I wouldn't use the @ symbol. That already has a
meaning.
it's part
> of a ?htl=... However, I could be grossly mistaken. Comments?
-- next part --
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
<https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20020831/a4efc070/attachment.pgp>
On Saturday 31 August 2002 14:41, Matthew wrote:
> > On Sat, Aug 31, 2002 at 02:47:45PM -0400, Gianni Johansson wrote:
> > On Saturday 31 August 2002 12:46, Matthew wrote:
> > > > On Sat, Aug 31, 2002 at 12:33:58AM -0400, Gianni Johansson wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Friday 30 August 2002 08:57,
next part --
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
<https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20020831/e5b83e99/attachment.pgp>
YYYMMDD ? @ is reserved in
keys,
isn't it?
I want old-edition links to work without invoking click-through security,
because
they represent no conceivable security risk above regular links. The other
possibility is to special case ?date=MMDD in the parser.
Any suggestions?
-- next part --
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
<https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20020831/4e887a97/attachment.pgp>
would my request above impossible, but that's OK.
Ewww.
-- next part --
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
<https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20020831/d83b70de/attachment.pgp>
available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
<https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20020831/41b41789/attachment.pgp>
.
>
> --gj
>
> ___
> devl mailing list
> devl at freenetproject.org
> http://hawk.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
>
-- next part --
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type:
At 07:41 PM 08/31/2002 +0100, Matthew Toseland wrote:
>So an alternate date format may make sense... how about
>
>/DATE at MMDD/SSK at ...? SSK at blah/blah at MMDD ? @ is reserved in
>keys,
>isn't it?
>
>I want old-edition links to work without invoking click-through security,
On Saturday 31 August 2002 12:46, Matthew wrote:
> > On Sat, Aug 31, 2002 at 12:33:58AM -0400, Gianni Johansson wrote:
> > On Friday 30 August 2002 08:57, Matthew wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Aug 29, 2002 at 01:57:03PM +0100, Matthew Toseland wrote:
> > > > Hi. Newly implemented fproxy functionality
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
<https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20020831/7b5a5b21/attachment.pgp>
I agree and would like to ask to clarify one thing that Greg proposed and
add another idea and propose a workaround for the whole issue of human
readable dates:
Is the new HTL in idea #2 incremented from the previous HTL? Only for
DNF's? I assume most people have 15 for their default fproxy
next part --
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 232 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
<https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20020831/626b1b2b/attachment.pgp>
On Friday 30 August 2002 19:52, Ian wrote:
> > ...but I think everyone else might.
It's a cool hack, but I don't get it. It seems like a "me-too"
implementation of JSP.
Is it complete enough to localize fproxy with?
I hear people complaining that the data store gets corrupted. I hear people
On Friday 30 August 2002 08:57, Matthew wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 29, 2002 at 01:57:03PM +0100, Matthew Toseland wrote:
> > Hi. Newly implemented fproxy functionality allows you to fetch an old
> > edition of a DBR site, like this:
> > http://127.0.0.1:/SSK at
http://127.0.0.1:/__USE_DATE_20020817__SSK@rBjVda8pC-Kq04jUurIAb8IzAGcPAgM/TFE//
I think that the user interface should work like this:
1) User goes to TFE, and clicks on a link for a site.
2) After a while, fred says DataNotFound, and fproxy draws a page that
looks like this:
On Sat, Aug 31, 2002 at 01:18:23PM -0400, Greg Wooledge wrote:
http://127.0.0.1:/__USE_DATE_20020817__SSK@rBjVda8pC-Kq04jUurIAb8IzAGcPAgM/TFE//
I think that the user interface should work like this:
(snip)
Thanks for stating the bleedin obvious. Some of us around here have
actually
On Sat, Aug 31, 2002 at 12:42:07PM -0500, Ed Onken wrote:
I agree and would like to ask to clarify one thing that Greg proposed and
add another idea and propose a workaround for the whole issue of human
readable dates:
Is the new HTL in idea #2 incremented from the previous HTL? Only for
On Saturday 31 August 2002 12:46, Matthew wrote:
On Sat, Aug 31, 2002 at 12:33:58AM -0400, Gianni Johansson wrote:
On Friday 30 August 2002 08:57, Matthew wrote:
On Thu, Aug 29, 2002 at 01:57:03PM +0100, Matthew Toseland wrote:
Hi. Newly implemented fproxy functionality allows you
On Sat, Aug 31, 2002 at 02:47:45PM -0400, Gianni Johansson wrote:
On Saturday 31 August 2002 12:46, Matthew wrote:
On Sat, Aug 31, 2002 at 12:33:58AM -0400, Gianni Johansson wrote:
On Friday 30 August 2002 08:57, Matthew wrote:
On Thu, Aug 29, 2002 at 01:57:03PM +0100, Matthew
On Sat, Aug 31, 2002 at 12:53:15AM -0400, Gianni Johansson wrote:
...but I think everyone else might.
It's a cool hack, but I don't get it. It seems like a me-too
implementation of JSP.
Nah, it is much simpler than JSP, it is simply variable replacement
(where another template can be a
Looking at Parser.flex...
/* Non whitespace and not close of tag (right angle bracket). I.e.
* chars that
* would not cause an unquoted attribute to end */
NONSEP=[^\n\r\ \t\b\012:?]
NONSEP_NOQUOTE=[^\n\r\ \t\b\012:?]
This I don't understand... ? or : do not terminate the attribute
(meaning
On Sat, Aug 31, 2002 at 08:20:33PM +0100, Matthew Toseland wrote:
Looking at Parser.flex...
/* Non whitespace and not close of tag (right angle bracket). I.e.
* chars that
* would not cause an unquoted attribute to end */
NONSEP=[^\n\r\ \t\b\012:?]
NONSEP_NOQUOTE=[^\n\r\ \t\b\012:?]
At 07:41 PM 08/31/2002 +0100, Matthew Toseland wrote:
big snippage
So an alternate date format may make sense... how about
/DATE@MMDD/SSK@...? SSK@blah/blah@MMDD ? @ is reserved in keys,
isn't it?
I want old-edition links to work without invoking click-through security,
because
they
On Sat, Aug 31, 2002 at 08:24:07PM -0400, Gianni Johansson wrote:
On Saturday 31 August 2002 14:41, Matthew wrote:
On Sat, Aug 31, 2002 at 02:47:45PM -0400, Gianni Johansson wrote:
On Saturday 31 August 2002 12:46, Matthew wrote:
On Sat, Aug 31, 2002 at 12:33:58AM -0400, Gianni
On Sat, Aug 31, 2002 at 08:39:42PM -0400, Gianni Johansson wrote:
On Saturday 31 August 2002 14:41, you wrote:
So an alternate date format may make sense... how about
/DATE@MMDD/SSK@...? SSK@blah/blah@MMDD ? is reserved in keys,
isn't it?
This looks confusing to me. I
On Saturday 31 August 2002 20:07, you wrote:
On Sat, Aug 31, 2002 at 08:39:42PM -0400, Gianni Johansson wrote:
On Saturday 31 August 2002 14:41, you wrote:
So an alternate date format may make sense... how about
/DATE@MMDD/SSK@...? SSK@blah/blah@MMDD ? @ is reserved in keys,
On Sat, Aug 31, 2002 at 08:39:42PM -0400, Gianni Johansson wrote:
On Saturday 31 August 2002 14:41, you wrote:
So an alternate date format may make sense... how about
/DATE@MMDD/SSK@...? SSK@blah/blah@MMDD ? is reserved in keys,
isn't it?
This looks confusing to me. I
29 matches
Mail list logo
