> If we really want to encode control documents into keys, this looks to me > like > the right way to do it--flexible and general. (Although the parens in keys > make me want to cry, too).
You don't want to encode control documents in keys. You want to encode information needed to find and decrypt the file in keys. That's what keys are for. That's why we include things like the public key and docname. Control documents work just fine for redirects, splitfiles, and mapfiles. I'm not suggesting we try to encode an entire mapfile in a URI. Sure, you could do that. You could do that more easily with by embedding a typed functional language in the URI. But that's ridiculous and unnecessary. Some things should go in the key (pubkey, docname). I think we should expand this slightly to include baseline and interval because DBRs are so *fundamental* to locating files on Freenet. I certainly don't think that a mapfile or splitfile should go in a URI. _______________________________________________ Devl mailing list Devl at freenetproject.org http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devl
