Dne Friday 15 of August 2008 20:57:12 Peter Saint-Andre napsal(a): > Pavel Simerda wrote: > > On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 10:38:42 -0600 > > > > Peter Saint-Andre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Pavel Simerda wrote: > > <snip/>
[snip] > > > > Yep, they would be good to incorporate in ConentID. Btw, the hash would > > be enough itself (without CID) but we want to use CID URIs. > > I agree that hashes would be enough (as in XEP-0084), but here we want > to use CIDs for cross-referencing. > Yes, altought I don't know what exatly does cross-referencing mean I understand it's probably a good idea ;-). > >>> You can use hash-based UUIDs. > >> > >> Where are those specified? I see a bit of information about that in > >> RFC4122 but not a lot of details. > > > > They are only hash-based and they are (hopefully) unique to a > > particular sequence of bytes. They don't serve the same purpose as e.g. > > sha1 mostly because the full sha1 hash doesn't fit in UUID. > > I'll have to see where those are specified. > > <snip/> > > >>> 2) Add one additional form of CID: > >>> "hash-value"@"hash-function".xep0231.xmpp.org. > >>> (the concrete syntax serves as an example, not final syntax) > >>> The hash functions would be "sha1", "sha256" and possibly other ones > >>> too and the computed hash value would be based on both *content > >>> type* and *content data* (needs more precise spec.). This would > >>> also be an exception from forced "per JID" caching. > >> > >> Or if people define emoticon bundles then the images could be > >> identified by the domain of the entity that hosts the bundle, perhaps > >> an open-source project or whatever. > >> > >> /psa > > > > This would break the hash function use case. We want same data > > (including type) to have same ContentID uri for global sharing > > (most probably with a constant domain part). > > I don't see any big difference between: > > cid:[email protected] > > and: > > cid:[email protected] > > or: > > cid:[email protected] > > or whatever. > > Why do we need centralization of the address space? > > /psa I quite like the idea, everything essentailly boils down to changing cid description in Table 1 of xep-231 to not force UUID as node and domain as... uhm... domain I like also the decentralization idea and the hash function being included. I only wonder if the domain used would have any useful meaning actually? And even if the meaning was symbolic, what if [EMAIL PROTECTED] created his own images? Do we forbid him (his client) to set the cid to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ? I feel like I miss something important here. What if romeo downloads pack from web open-emoticons.tld and adds to his client? Now the cid could be [EMAIL PROTECTED] too, but the pack would be the same as [EMAIL PROTECTED] Technically i think this is non-issue, but pack authors might consider it offending :-). Regards, Zenon Kuder jr.
