On Wed, May 30, 2001 at 12:07:59PM -0400, Benjamin Coates wrote: > How is freenet not a protocol with similar standing to HTTP and FTP? I would > say that's exactly what it is...
Because it *USES* HTTP for communcation with the local node, it is not a replacement for HTTP, and there is no need to try to replace HTTP just for the sake of having prettier URIs. > I think there's a benefit with not being tied into http. In particular, I > think we're going to need browser support to have any sort of practical > 'security filter' system, or to be able to submit to in-freenet key indexes > and the like, or to have client-side scripting that doesn't compromise the > user's anonymity... there's probably more I haven't thought of. And I never > understood how freenet: protocol plugins endangered people who wanted to or > had to keep using fproxy. Because it would encurage people to create hyperlinks such as <a href="freenet:xxx">blah</a> and they wouldn't work unless you had installed a browser plugin. Ian. -------------- 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/20010530/f8cb21fd/attachment.pgp>
