Actually I think that what Brandon wants is for the part we are refering to as metadata to always be in Freenet format, and that if Joe Shmoe want's his own type of meta-data and none of Freenet's he would simply put the storable meta-data length to 0.
On Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 12:50:42AM -0500, Scott G. Miller wrote: > > > > 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. > > -- \oskar _______________________________________________ Freenet-dev mailing list Freenet-dev at lists.sourceforge.net http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/freenet-dev
