Hello Gervase, On 11/15/06, Gervase Markham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Michel Fortin wrote: > I'm beginning to think that the link "fingerprint" method is best > solution because the hash is more portable as part of the URL. I could > for instance copy a fingerprinted URL right into this email: > > http://example.com/file#!md5!b3187253c1667fac7d20bb762ad53967 Indeed, that's one of the major use cases. > and a knowledgeable browser receiving this URL would know how to check > the validity of the received document. The two concerns I have with it > is that it somewhat distorts the concept of a fragment identifier, It does a bit; but the fragment identifier is unused for binary downloads, so there's not much risk of a clash.
Just an FYI. I've been promoting the use of fragments for (binary) video file. (Not here... but privately and on one public mailing list.) For example... http://example.com/video.mpeg#smtpe(01:20:39:15) Also, I've suggested (privately and on one public mailing list) the use of fragments on video files for "pointing to" clips. (I.e., "pointing to" intervals of the video.) For example... http://example.com/video.mpeg#smtpe(01:20:39:15-01:28:14:50) (Note that there are 2 SMTPE time codes there separated with a hypen. So it would be the clip, with in the video, from "01:20:39:15" to "01:28:14:50".) (This notation was inspired by the "xpointer" fragments.) See ya Also, "!" is currently
not legal in HTML ids, AIUI. > and > it's generally going to be lost if there is any redirection (although a > browser that knows about fingerprints could keep them across redirections). Indeed. In fact, it would be a security flaw to update the identifier on redirect. Gerv
-- Charles Iliya Krempeaux, B.Sc. charles @ reptile.ca supercanadian @ gmail.com developer weblog: http://ChangeLog.ca/
