"David McNab" <david at rebirthing.co.nz> writes: > What I *am* saying is that it could be crucial to Freenet's long > term welfare to phase in another URI syntax, especially for > MSKs. Despite the apparent flippancy of my previous post on the > subject, I'm quite serious on this one.
Your URI syntax is pretty close to what I've wanted since I started working with Freenet URIs. I'm all for it, except for one problem: > The tiny price to pay for this is that the strings 'freenet', 'chk', > 'ssk', 'svk' and 'msk' will be forever off-limits from KSK > namespace. ...and SSK namespace. I think it's possible to come up with a scheme that doesn't have that problem. The important thing is to be careful to treat it like a directory structure. So, under /freenet, we have the following directories: ssk/ svk/ chk/ ksk/ Which are true alternatives, because a key can't be of more than one type. Any mention of those keywords later in the key's namespace is just fine. MSKs are problematic because their contents can include two freeform strings: the one in the SSK or KSK, and the one in the MSK path. There's no way to tell where one ends and the other begins without a special delimiter. As it turns out "//" was a poor choice. "/msk/" is possibly a better choice, and I wouldn't be too unhappy if we went with that, but if we could use something like ",", I'd be even happier. Maybe something like: /freenet/msk/blah/blah/blah,/freenet/ksk/foo -S _______________________________________________ Devl mailing list Devl at freenetproject.org http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devl
