On Mon, Jun 11, 2001 at 04:01:04PM -0400, Gianni Johansson wrote: > > > On Mon, Jun 11, 2001 at 11:49:14AM -0400, Gianni Johansson wrote: > > > Back in april, I suggested adding support for "checked jumps" to fproxy. > > > > Yep, this is a good idea, although why nescessitate that the page author > > uses "CHECKED__JUMP" - why not just do it for all off-freenet hyperlinks > > automatically > Here are my reasons: > 0) I thought that there was a consensus on this list that having fproxy > dynamically modify html was a Very Bad Thing (tm) for several reasons. > e.g. it pisses of content authors, there are unforseen security/anonimity > implications.
Ok, just thought I would check... > 1) Writing a real-time HTML parser that could handle such transformations > in a robust, secure way is hard. Knowing that your implementation is correct > is even harder... Agreed.... > The approach taken by the patch is really simple ( = robust and debuggable) > even if it is not as elegant. Agreed... > Should I check it in? I have no problem with that. Ian. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 232 bytes Desc: not available URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20010611/b291195d/attachment.pgp>
