On Tue, May 08, 2001 at 01:15:44PM -0500, Brandon wrote:
> > Appending the metadata key to the CHK strikes me as an inelegant
> > solution to a non-problem.
>
> It has already been generally agreed that there are two problems which
> have to be solved. Only one solution to these two problems has been
> suggested, which is taking metadata out of CHKs. So unless you have a more
> elegant solution to the same two problems then its elegance is not a valid
> issue.
I don't think that the possibility that two identical documents might
have different CHKs due to differences in the metadata, is actually a
serious problem. The metadata is supposed to be a description of the
data, and thus identical data should have identical metadata. If this
doesn't happen, then the solution is to provide reccomended standards
for metadata (such as the de-facto mime-type standard we have for
fproxy), not require that the user have two keys to access any document.
> If you'd like to debate whether the two problems that need to be solved
> are in fact problems, then that's a separate issue. My arguements for the
> second problem (different metadata causing identifical files to not
> collide) has not been refuted. The first problem is debatable if you'd
> like to debate it.
I am not entirely clear on the distinction between these two problems,
but none of the problems you have outlined strike me as real problems.
Ian.
PGP signature
