> Scott doesn't think that we should run off an define a metadata format for > all data on Freenet since task specific clients may wish to use whatever > metadata format they want, but that we can say that if a piece of data > contains only metadata and nothing else, we can assume it's something like > a "Freenet control entry" for which we do have a specified format (FNP > type field value pares) (the most obvious example of this are the > redirects from KSK top KSS or CHK). > > Brandon rejects this elegant solution because of semantic objection (as
I reject this because using an anomalous condition (zero length data) as a flag for special data (freenet control entry) is bad protocol design. It is not immediately obvious when looking at a message that a message with no data is a freenet control entry. I prefer to explicitly state such a condition with a field in the message saying hey, this is a freenet control entry rather than having it be implied. _______________________________________________ Freenet-dev mailing list Freenet-dev at lists.sourceforge.net http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/freenet-dev
