>From david at aminal.com >The point of putting it in the same package is validation. Hard to dispute that >the metadata was meant to refer to the data if it's in the same package.
I suppose, but it doesn't really buy you anything, since somebody can just download the CHK, fiddle with the metadata, and upload it again... (under a different CHK key value, of course) >Generalized metadata has meaning outside of Freenet, once the data payload >has left Freenet the metadata is still usefull, and still communicates >something about the data. Content-type is one of these types of description. >Where this metadata should live is much less clear, the requirements are not >just determined by what the Freenet code needs, unless you're just specifying >for the convenience of the coders. > >Unfortunately, that's where things stand right now. After over a year of >flailing around with this stuff, there is still no agreement on what the >requirements are for the generalized form of metadata. The properties that the >generalized form of metadata will have, like validation, flexibility, etc. >will be determined by what's convenient to code, because there is simply no >other guidance. Well, what are we talking about for this general metadata, I'm still not clear what it's good for at all. Does anyone have an example of something that would be useful? (If not, I'd say it's a fairly safe bet that we don't need it at all, and can safely assume metadata == freenet-specific metadata) -- Benjamin Coates
