Adam Langley <agl at linuxpower.org> writes: > On Sat, Apr 07, 2001 at 02:13:10AM -0500, Brandon wrote: > > As I understand it, you can have redirect and info messages but you can't > > relate a particular info message to a particular redirect. > > Well, would it be good if Info messages had a document name? Looking > at the spec it seems they don't (I'm not sure when that happened) > but that way Redirects and Info messages with the same document > named are linked.
"Info" doesn't have a docname in the spec because I split it apart from control documents, which made sense at the time. So the idea was one Info message per CHK, or something like that. But now that we've decided that metadata in CHKs is a Bad Idea, it obviously needs to go in the control document. In fact, there is no longer a distinction between control documents and metadata, since control documents are the only sensible form of metadata. Freenet now has two distinct kinds of files: metadata files, and data files. So, with the current metadata scheme, there's no way to associate an Info message with a document. We could fix that by adding a docname field, but I don't think that's the best way to do it. Since Info goes in what were formerly control documents, it never refers to any data that has come with it, which means that it always needs to be associated with a URI. An Info message doesn't make any sense without a corresponding Redirect statement. So let's just merge them into a single command: DocInfo URI=freenet:CHK at blah,blah Docname=foo Metadata.Title=blah Metadata.Author=blahblah [and so on] EndPart One great thing about doing it this way is that an in-Freenet key index could list DocInfo entries instead of just keys, and key indicies would have access to document metadata. -S _______________________________________________ Devl mailing list Devl at freenetproject.org http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devl
