>From Mr.Bad <mr.bad at pigdog.org> >>>>> "BC" == Benjamin Coates <coates at windmail.net> writes: > > BC> What's the point of attaching this highly descriptive stuff to > BC> the file at all? Wouldn't this belong in an seperate > BC> indexing/searching layer? The sort of metadata you need in a > BC> CHK is stuff like content-type or part-number or whatever, > ^^^^^^^^^^^^ > BC> that lets you interpret the data you have, not author or > BC> keywords or subject (that lets you find or categorize the > BC> data) > >Content-Type is descriptive metadata. So is size, duration, etc. See >Dublin Core for details. > >I see no particular reason not to attach Dublin Core metadata to CHKs, >except some people's over-enthusiastic worriedness about having the >SAME DATA in Freenet TWICE. DC metadata does allow some free-form >fields, and theoretically people could diddle one of these fields and >reinsert the CHK. >
Content-Type is how the client decides which viewer to pass the data on to. Clients are unlikely to do anything at all with things like "Description" or "Publisher" or "Title". This is the sort of thing that would be useful *before* you download the CHK, like in an index or something, but putting it into the CHK itself means you have to download the whole file to get the subject (for example). -- Benjamin Coates _______________________________________________ Devl mailing list Devl at freenetproject.org http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devl
