-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Thursday 13 February 2003 09:03 pm, you wrote: > > > I really don't like the idea of encouraging users to use freenet:xxx > > > style URIs in web browsers, since they won't be backward compatable > > > with browsers that don't support that functionality. > > > > I really don't actually think this is a problem. > > If mozilla rewrites relative URLs the way I think it does, then all pages > > inside freenet should work fine, and absolute URLs are prone to breaking > > anyway. > > If you are smart enough to change the default fproxy port, then you are > smart enough to modify the URLs accordingly. I am concerned about users > who just want to install Freenet, and then be able to click on > hyperlinks to Freenet content without having to worry about installing > browser plugins. > > In short, this would be throwing a wrench in our user experience for an > esthetic nicety that most people won't even notice or care about. If > its not broken, don't fix it.
If that was it, I would agree, however, there have been some other interesting threads going on, about hacking up mozilla to speak FCP, and then cut out or block off its ability to speak HTTP, for a nice security boost (and potentially, graceful handling of some things that fproxy can't, because it's limited by HTTP). In this context, creating a freenet: protozilla isn't about aesthetics, it's about taking the first step to creating a "freenet browser" -- and I think that that's a worthwhile goal. Cheers - --hobbs -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE+TE8N6xdpaulLLFURAkuTAJ9hpqY6sjoKS5xGhIsb29PKaPVAZwCaA37S w8bxQQQ2pgsEUNTfUsA7oK8= =NFvI -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ devl mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hawk.freenetproject.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
