On Sat, Apr 07, 2001 at 01:02:03PM -0500, Steven Hazel wrote: > > But how do we give out CHKs then? We can't really point to a way to > > get the DMI (what I'm calling "Real Metadata", Dublin Core stuff > > because we don't have another name for it). Or do we say that you > > only link DMI to a CHK thru a DocInfo? > > That's what I'm suggesting. Including actual metadata with the CHK > seems to be a bad plan.
Yes, but if we then we loose the ability to give out a freenet:CHK@ key and include metadata. You can put metadata in another document and include a second routing key in the key. This leads to duplication of metadata if it's in a DocInfo and a separate document. > > I'm not clued up on this problem. (I read the threads again). Whats > > wrong with a list of Redirect, Info pairs? > > Nothing, I just want to pull the pairs into a single command, if it's > reasonable to do so. > > > Also pairs of messages mean that we can cleanly replace it with a > > WaitRedirect (or whatever). > > I think we can still do that. Since all a Redirect provides is a URI > and a docname, WaitRedirect, etc, can be moved from optional commands > to optional fields. But you're then moving from something like: WaitRedirect ... EndMessage Info ... EndMessage to DocInfo Command=WaitRedirect Command.Arg.URI=.. Metadata.... ... EndMessage that's looks like a step backwards. AGL -- In an orderly world, there's always a place for the disorderly. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 240 bytes Desc: not available URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20010407/1f524a61/attachment.pgp>
