On Wed, May 30, 2001 at 12:07:59PM -0400, Benjamin Coates wrote:
> How is freenet not a protocol with similar standing to HTTP and FTP? I would
> say that's exactly what it is...
Because it *USES* HTTP for communcation with the local node, it is not a
replacement for HTTP, and there is no need to try to replace HTTP just
for the sake of having prettier URIs.
> I think there's a benefit with not being tied into http. In particular, I
> think we're going to need browser support to have any sort of practical
> 'security filter' system, or to be able to submit to in-freenet key indexes
> and the like, or to have client-side scripting that doesn't compromise the
> user's anonymity... there's probably more I haven't thought of. And I never
> understood how freenet: protocol plugins endangered people who wanted to or
> had to keep using fproxy.
Because it would encurage people to create hyperlinks such as <a
href="freenet:xxx">blah</a> and they wouldn't work unless you had
installed a browser plugin.
Ian.
PGP signature
