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@YYYYMMDD/SSK@...? SSK@blah/blah@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. Any web page on the public internet can inline, even invisibly, a link to a page on fproxy, with whatever arguments he wants to use. So we can't allow any really unsafe ? arguments in fproxy, and we certainly can't allow posting from a get form (thanks oskar). > > > > > 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
msg03726/pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
