Matthew Toseland wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 07, 2007 at 08:58:42AM -0600, David Sowder (Zothar) wrote:
>
>> If it hasn't ever been authoritatively said that keys are always HTTP
>> URI encoded when talking with the node, then the node should do minimal
>> encoding as required by the specific protocol being used to talk with a
>> client: i.e. HTTP URI encoding as appropriate when FProxy is doing the
>> talking and maybe backslash encoded for \n via FCP (with no other encoding)?
>>
>
> That's just the problem: Minimal encoding is ambiguous.
>
>> In any case, a decision needs to be made if it hasn't already and once
>> that decision is made, it should be very clearly spelled out in the
>> appropriate specs. The node should not accept input that's not
>> compliant with the spec (perhaps after a month or two of transition time
>> is allowed). Once it's in the spec, clients that don't conform to the
>> spec are considered broken, are fixed and then the problem is gone forever.
>>
>
> It has been. Freenet URIs are a kind of URI. This has been our line
> forever.
>
In that case, we need to double-check that fred is consistent with that
everywhere and then declare that after release X, fred will not accept
as valid any expected FreenetURI that's not properly encoded.
