-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 > How about this compromise: We define a small set of "encodings" for > fields, that can be used for operations like comparison and whatever > Oskar and Scott have in mind (which I still don't quite understand). > But the spec makes it clear that name==type, and all applications > are forbidden to modify, delete, or add fields based on nothing but > these encodings, and that these encodings must all be representable > and fully transportable as strings, so that applications treating > them as such will not lose information. Every field's purpose is > defined totally and exclusively by its name, and only one encoding > is allowed for any defined type.
I still don't like name==type. That enforces the idea that the application has to understand every field. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE5IERupXyM95IyRhURAgUfAKDK+pYN5jSe5hOMvb5+JEwlXATWxgCgk/FS xBkfJaMZsquqB5dX68afxw0= =8MUu -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Freenet-dev mailing list Freenet-dev at lists.sourceforge.net http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/freenet-dev
