> Does RFC 1945 define a redirect field? I guess it does since redirects > seem to happen quite a bit on the web. We need automatic redirects for the > keys that shouldn't generally carry data.
Yes, a redirect field would be good. Or perhaps the redirect information could go in the trailing field. Then you could set the Content-type to something like freenet/redirect. Similarly with indices. All of the content could go in the trailing field. > I have no opinion about what is the better choice. RFC 1945 will make > Freenet to HTTP gateways a lot easier, FNP is what we use for everything > else. I prefer to use FNP for everything. I would most like it if once the trailing field was encrypted, it contained a document in Freenet protocol (fields followed by trailing field) and that such documents could be nested. _______________________________________________ Freenet-dev mailing list Freenet-dev at lists.sourceforge.net http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/freenet-dev
