Oskar Sandberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 25, 2001 at 11:46:40PM -0400, Benjamin Coates wrote:
> > >> Second, I'd like to do hyperlink rewriting before we build up too
> > >> much content hardwired to "http://localhost:8081/";. It's just poor
> > >> practice. We ought to author hyperlinks as "freenet:xxx" and
> > >> rewrite them to whatever port you have fproxy on, or https if you do
> > >> that.
> > >
> > >Ian being on hawaii, I'll point out this can't be done without hacking
> > >every browser that people use.
> >
> > It would only be a problem on http->freenet links, once they are being
> > passed thru fproxy, it can do the rewriting. And a local proxy for
> > http could do it, too, as well as give better anonymity filtering...
>
> </Ian mode><MrBad mode> YOU CAN'T REWRITE DATA THAT PASSES THROUGH
> FPROXY, IT IS A MORTAL SIN!!!!!! </MrBad mode>
>
> On a more rational note, rewriting isn't much better, since although you
> don't have to fix it for all browsers, you have to fix it for all file
> formats that could include links...
yeah, but that set is smaller and changes much more slowly, so I think it's
feasible to do it. Adding a rewriting procedure for a new file format is
much simpler than writing a plugin for a new browser. Also, changes don't
break compatibility with previous content. In the plugin situation, when
Netscape 7 comes out, you can't view anything at all until the plugin is
released. In the file format situation, when HTML 5 comes out, you can
still happily view HTML 4.
theo
PGP signature
