On Mon, 03 Dec 2001, Scott Young wrote: > On Monday 03 December 2001 11:49 am, you wrote: > [timeType:timeValue] > > This would provide backwards and forwards compatibility and also give clear, > strict semantics for the time value. The timeType would define a specific > handler for converting the timeValue. Some examples: > <SNIP ALL SORTS OF ICKY SYNTAX> > > Or most of the date handling could be shoved into just one prefix. If > changes are wanted, there is more namespace to change the date handling. The > problem we have now is with backwards compatibility - let's improve it > with a system that will be easy to maintain backwards compatability on. > > Scott Young
This kind of system just raises the total bar you have to leap over to write a freenet client and doesn't solve the problem at all of there being types of links out there that some clients don't support (because they're hard to code, etc.). I'd like to pose a question to the list: Is the problem with the current date system that it's in HEX or that it's seconds since 1970? If it's the hex deal, my biggest objection to switching to decimal is figuring out how we're going to change over. If it's the seconds since 1970, you're going to have to convince me that it's bad. CofE's response to the recent thread (is it still this one) wasn't that he agreed with Ian that the new date system was too hard to use, but that he understood and was fully capable of using the new date system, but didn't want to bother maintining both kinds up links. Thelema -- E-mail: thelema314 at bigfoot.com If you love something, set it free. GPG 1536g/B9C5D1F7 fpr:075A A3F7 F70B 1397 345D A67E 70AA 820B A806 F95D -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 232 bytes Desc: not available URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20011203/c0cc196c/attachment.pgp>
