On Tue, Oct 31, 2006 at 10:37:05PM +0100, freenetwork at web.de wrote: > >> Some way to add an indication to the keys text representation would be > >> very helpful. > > >Perhaps. What would you suggest? > > >CHK at blah,blah,blah,filename.ext > >CHK at blah,blah,blah?filename=filename.ext > > >The ? parameters are not part of the URI, they're specified by fproxy, but > >they can be standardised and supported by fproxy and frost if it's helpful > >to do so; we can already e.g. override the mime type through ? parameters). > > >Any other options? > > CHK at blah,blah,blah#filename.ext > > just like href-anchors
How do href-anchors have anything to do with this? They simply refer to a section within a URI; they aren't, for example, passed to the web server, in the case of Fproxy. So using them would make Frost incompatible with Fproxy, which is something to be avoided ideally. > > easy to detect, easy to use, compatible with '/' for later functionality Later functionality? > > and please drop this > the-filename-is-in-the-metadata-and-modifies-the-generated-chk-so-if-a-request-is-provided-with-a-wrong-filename-nothing-will-be-found-SH*T! CHK at blah,blah,blah/filename/filename.ext Could be any of the following: 1. Fetch CHK at blah,blah,blah. It's a file. /filename/filename.ext is bogus. 2. Fetch CHK at blah,blah,blah. It's a manifest. Look up filename. That's a file. The last part, "filename.ext" is bogus. 3. Fetch CHK at blah,blah,blah. It's a manifest. Look up filename. That's also a manifest. Fetch filename.ext. This is really not helpful. It means that a) CHKs do not behave like normal URIs and b) It is impossible to compare one CHK with another There are two ways I could meet your demand. 1. Reinstate double-slash for manifest lookups. Breaks backwards compatibility, and sucks, because double-slash isn't a normal part of a URI. Single slash is IMHO the best thing for a manifest (= directory) lookup. 2. Not allow CHK manifests. This would break all existing one-shot freesites, might break larger SSK freesites as well, and seems rather arbitrary. One possible way out of your concern would be to include both the filename and the empty string in the manifest when inserting a CHK. But this means that the two forms are not directly comparable, for a start. -------------- 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/20061101/06626535/attachment.pgp>
