On Fri, Apr 06, 2001 at 12:29:03PM -0500, Steven Hazel wrote: > > Noone's actually said anything bad about it expect that's it's more > > than we need and that ( ) in URIs isn't nice. > That pretty much sums it up.
Doesn't make it any the less elegent. > > However, I'm willing to bodge the current system if only to get > > Brandon and Steven to shutup about it. I know that if I push for > > Ramblings they'll never stop bitching. > You're a quick one. You'll learn someday, or go to your death bed unenlightened. Which even happens first. > > So I'll settle for something like > > "//%DBR,val1,val2,...%docname". And simply say "I told you so" > > everytime someone finds something wrong with the metadata system. > > That sounds good to me. Shouldn't you gloat when people find things > wrong with key URIs, though? This isn't about metadata. I'll just gloat generally. And the above system is actually a pile of crap. With whatever system we should wrap anything the user shouldn't see. That basically means everything except the keytype and docname. Exposing DBR arguments or functions etc is asking for trouble. Put 'em under base64 I say. AGL -- Never underestimate the power of a small tactical nuclear weapon. -------------- 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/20010406/18243b20/attachment.pgp>
