On Fri, 15 Aug 2008 22:39:22 +0200 Zenon Kuder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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] ? Look at my other post... > 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 :-). This is why I suggested a constant domain part, as it makes no sense anyway for the hashed values. > Regards, > Zenon Kuder jr. -- Web: http://www.pavlix.net/ Jabber & Mail: pavlix(at)pavlix.net OpenID: pavlix.net
