On Sun, Dec 10, 2006 at 02:34:18PM +0100, Jano wrote: > Jerome Flesch wrote: > > > http://wiki.freenetproject.org/AnotherFreenetIndexFormat > > It doesn't allow to do a complete hierarchie, but you can use the tag > > <option name="category" value="[...]" /> to sort the files (I will > > probably do a list with the most common option names to avoid > > duplication). If you think a complete hierarchie would be usefull, we can > > update the specs.
Or you could introduce more tags. Aren't user agents supposed to ignore tags they don't know? I suppose that includes tags included inside that tag though, so it wouldn't be back compatible? > > Thanks. Seen that, hierarchies could be constructed by using options. We > could balance if we prefer explicit support or a convention on some option > names used for this. I.e: > > <option name="folder" value="some relative path" /> > > and so on... > > Using options has the advantage that no special measures have to be taken > (besides documentation, as you say), and current parsers would be valid > even if they would miss the hierarchy. Other improvements handled in this > way would also be transparently handled. The obvious drawback is that > unaware coders could misuse a reserved option name, although I see this as > minor given the size of freenet. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/tech/attachments/20061211/600d0993/attachment.pgp>
