> > But both your proposal and my proposal are FNP-based metadata > proposals. The only difference is that I want to separate out some of the > fields into a separate data section. The only disadvantage that I can see > to do this is that you can't have a single file which is both a redirect > and a multipart or a redirect and an index, etc.. Which I think is fine. But your missing the point.
In your proposal, the client has no way of knowing whether it has freenet-special metadata, or regular metadata. Your proposal requires that the client examine every piece of metadata to find out if its freenet-special before it acts on it. Having the zero-length data convention (which would be a very very odd thing for a normal document to have) makes it quite simple for the client to distinguish freenet-special metadata from joe schmoe's metadata. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 232 bytes Desc: not available URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20000819/d37a72b1/attachment.pgp>
