On Sun, May 01, 2005 at 11:34:59PM -0700, Dan Quinlan wrote: > etc. I proposed using an array of hashes where each array element is > one URI. > > The problem with even that proposal is this: > > - we parse URIs during HTML rendering > - we then grab URIs from the message text
It's also pretty wasteful since the same URL will appear several times in the array. > Another idea I had is this: use a hash like we do currently, but have > the key be the canonical URI only, not the original URI, to avoid > replication, etc. Then the value hash would be various things like > where it came from, the original forms, etc. Can't do that easily. Any parsed URI can have numerous "canonical" URIs. You could choose one to use, of course, as it goes through the canonicalizer, but ... What are you trying to solve by changing this around, again? I don't see there being a problem with the current code, so I don't understand why we want to go changing it. -- Randomly Generated Tagline: Professor: I knew I should have shown him "Electro-Gonnorhea, the Noisy Killer."
pgpYB0ddE8vdk.pgp
Description: PGP signature
