Oskar Sandberg wrote: > > Where did you get that URL format from? It is most certainly not correct, if > Freenet ever has a URL format, it will not include the server, since that is a > setting (URLs for mail and usenet do not include the address of the SMTP or > NNTP server, for example).
This is correct - in fact I question whether URLs are appropriate for Freenet keys at all since (and correct me if I am wrong) they generally imply an indication of the "location" of the information, which is not appropriate for Freenet (mailto:xxx style stuff might be an exception - but are they actually URLs or just a kludge?). I know they fit nicely into the web-browser paradigm but if we are going to use something in the URL-*style* then perhaps we should use a different term for them to avoid confusion. > Personally, I preferred the "free:" suggestion for the url name. I am pretty agnostic about this although it would make a nice point! Ian. _______________________________________________ Freenet-dev mailing list Freenet-dev at lists.sourceforge.net http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/freenet-dev
