> 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? > Yes, it can be also a solution. I'll think of it.
> > 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. -- Jerome Flesch.
