> > The only problem with encrypted metadata is that it will have to be > changed to unencrypted metadata once searching comes along. One > solution would be to have two sections of metadata, one public section > which is unencrypted, and one private section which is encrypted. You > would probably put potentially incriminating stuff in the private > metadata. No. Searching schemes will *not* operate on unencrypted metadata, rather, when someone inserts data they want to be searchable, they will send along the search metadata for filing under whatever search scheme is in place.
> > Yeah, but I don't see why we should really bother to support XML. We > should standardize on one or the other or otherwise clients will end > up having to support both. WE ARENT SUPPORTING XML. We are allowing the OPTION to let people use whatever metadata format they want, in the case its not freenet-special metadata. > > Yeah, using a short string to indicate the metadata type would > probably be easier in the long run than using integers, even if it > incurrs a small performance cost. However, as I said above, is > different metadata types really necessary? But insecure. -------------- 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/d8cf2381/attachment.pgp>
