On Tue, Nov 27, 2001 at 10:44:55AM -0600, thelema wrote: > I disagree with you about the relative complexity of the two formats, > but anyway.
Well, reality is on my side, just look at the fact that CofE, probably one of the most sophisticated freesite authors, has opted not to support forward/backwards links. > The main reason the change was made is because everything else is hex. Usability should never take second place to a purely asthetic consideration. > Also, time in seconds since the epoch is as good a time system as any, Not if you talk to freesite authors, many are furious that we have made life more difficult for them for no good reason. > having the very nice advantage over the "readable" dates of being much > easier to compute with. Give me just one example of where it would be significantly more difficult to "compute" with the old style versus the new style... > As for the difficulty of creating forward and > backward links, I maintain it's trivial to have a program generate the > hex codes for tomorrow and yesterday. Yes, but with the old mechanism a human could do it in their head which is even better. > One could even have a > pre-processor that changes <TOMORROW> to tomorrow's date and <YESTERDAY> > to yesterday's date in hex. What about 2 days ago, 5 days ago etc... > I don't have any problems with changing it to the seconds-since-epoch in > decimal (if adding 86400 is easier than adding 0x15180), but the old > date format was a pile, especially with having the increment being in > seconds. How many complaints did we receive from freesite authors about the old mechanism? How many did we receive about the new mechanism? I rest my case. Ian. -- Ian Clarke ian at freenetproject.org Founder & Coordinator, The Freenet Project http://freenetproject.org/ Chief Technology Officer, Uprizer Inc. http://www.uprizer.com/ -------------- 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/20011127/15901d63/attachment.pgp>
