> 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. No. Because yours assumes FNP formated metadata always. Mine has the nice feature of allowing any type of metadata the user wants unless there is no data. Its by far the more flexible solution.
> 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. Yeah, but that forces the FNP formated metadata. When the hell is someone going to send a zero-length data document? -------------- 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/d93e4f43/attachment.pgp>
