> 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.
That's actually exactly my point. In your proposal freenet-special and regular metadata are mixed together. In my proposal regular metadata comes first and then a trailing field and then the freenet-special metadata. So the two are separated. Both of our proposals have to exaxime every piece of metadata to find out if its freenet-special before acting. Your proposal requires it to look at the DataLength and mine requires it to look at the Content-Type field. > 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. I think that a convention where it explicitly states hey, this right here is freenet-special metadata (Content-Type=freenet/special-metadata or what have you) is better than a convention which assumes that a very very odd situation signifies something special. _______________________________________________ Freenet-dev mailing list Freenet-dev at lists.sourceforge.net http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/freenet-dev
