> I'm no expert on URLs (someone could dig up the standard) but it was my > understanding that the // indicated a location on the network, but that that > URLs that do not contain a location (file: , mailto: , news:) are > still completely within the standard.
Ok so you want me to make key requests that use the default node like: freenet:<key> ? and keep the specific node one to freenet://<server>/<key> ? > > a little later: > > The RFC is 1738 - http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1738.txt?number=1738 (the URL of > URLs!) > > The general format is just: > > <scheme>:<scheme-specific-part> > > With scheme: > > //<user>:<password>@<host>:<port>/<url-path> > > being used for schemes that "involve the direct use of an IP-based protocol to > a specified host on the Internet." > > Another part of note is this: > > "Many URL schemes reserve certain characters for a special meaning: > their appearance in the scheme-specific part of the URL has a > designated semantics. If the character corresponding to an octet is > reserved in a scheme, the octet must be encoded. The characters ";", > "/", "?", ":", "@", "=" and "&" are the characters which may be > reserved for special meaning within a scheme. No other characters may > be reserved within a scheme." > > Freenet's URL scheme will need to separate key/request type from the key > value, > and also, in the case of keys like CHKs and SVKs, separate the the hash value > from the decryption key. Also, urls allow only for a couple of chars > (alphabet, > number, and a handful more), other characters (since anything is allowed in a > KHK) have to be encoded. > So any proposals for other types of keys? Perhaps CHK's could be freenet:@<chk in hex> ? > Also: > > "A new scheme may be introduced by defining a mapping onto a > conforming URL syntax, using a new prefix. URLs for experimental > schemes may be used by mutual agreement between parties. Scheme names > starting with the characters "x-" are reserved for experimental > purposes. > > The Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) will maintain a > registry of URL schemes. Any submission of a new URL scheme must > include a definition of an algorithm for accessing of resources > within that scheme and the syntax for representing such a scheme. > > URL schemes must have demonstrable utility and operability. One way > to provide such a demonstration is via a gateway which provides > objects in the new scheme for clients using an existing protocol. If > the new scheme does not locate resources that are data objects, the > properties of names in the new space must be clearly defined. > > New schemes should try to follow the same syntactic conventions of > existing schemes, where appropriate. It is likewise recommended > that, where a protocol allows for retrieval by URL, that the client > software have provision for being configured to use specific gateway > locators for indirect access through new naming schemes." > > This is IANA page about currently accepted URL schemes, I think > > ftp://www.isi.edu/in-notes/iana/assignments/url-schemes > > Further digging also shows that RFC2396 > http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2396.txt?number=2396 actually replaces 1738, but it > says the same thing more or less, though it babels on about relative > references > and fragments and queries a lot. We have a goal to work towards =) Ok, so do you guys want me to change freenet: to x-freenet: right now? Thoughts? -Larry _______________________________________________ Freenet-dev mailing list Freenet-dev at lists.sourceforge.net http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/freenet-dev
