On Wed, May 09, 2001 at 08:16:22PM +0100, toad wrote: > On Wed, May 09, 2001 at 10:24:14AM -0700, Ian Clarke wrote: > > On Tue, May 08, 2001 at 01:15:44PM -0500, Brandon wrote: > > > > Appending the metadata key to the CHK strikes me as an inelegant > > > > solution to a non-problem. > > > > > > It has already been generally agreed that there are two problems which > > > have to be solved. Only one solution to these two problems has been > > > suggested, which is taking metadata out of CHKs. So unless you have a more > > > elegant solution to the same two problems then its elegance is not a valid > > > issue. > > > > I don't think that the possibility that two identical documents might > > have different CHKs due to differences in the metadata, is actually a > > serious problem. The metadata is supposed to be a description of the > > data, and thus identical data should have identical metadata. If this > > doesn't happen, then the solution is to provide reccomended standards > > for metadata (such as the de-facto mime-type standard we have for > > fproxy), not require that the user have two keys to access any document. > It is a real problem because Brandon and others want to use highly descriptive > human written metadata, for example the Dublin Core stuff includes several > fuzzy > fields. > > > >
So don't use the metadata to generate the CHK. Shouldn't be doing that anyway. D Schutt _______________________________________________ Devl mailing list Devl at freenetproject.org http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devl
