> Stinky. > > Freenet URLs should not include the server. The server is a > setting. Setting it in URL will confuse users, and makes as much > sense as having your Web proxy in the URL. > > The URL is supposed to locate a piece of data. It is supposed to > decribe locater necessary to find that data. The node used to enter > Freenet has NOTHING to do with this. It doesn't even have to be an > Internet host.
Freenet isn't any good if you dont have an entry point. Your key is basically useless unless the client can find a server that is close enough to the data to retrieve it. Encoding a node's information in there helps the client find data. The only difference between this and http is that ours is a suggestion, not a demand. Most of the time users wont make suggestions. Sometimes they will have to in order to get what they want. Hopefully this will eventually become obsolete. But for now I think there needs to be a mechanism to suggest where to enter freenet. Perhaps it's not the cleanest thing you can do, but I think it's an ok compromise. I'd rather abuse the URL a bit than have a user not find his/her data when it exists on the network. I suspect most users wont ever see this type of a URL after freenet takes off (big if here) and this format will become obsolete and this wont be an issue. Thoughts? -Larry _______________________________________________ Freenet-dev mailing list Freenet-dev at lists.sourceforge.net http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/freenet-dev
