>From ian at hawk.freenetproject.org (Ian Clarke) >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.
Well, once we have browser plugins that speak FCP (I'm working on one for IE right now), that won't need to be true any more. > >> 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. > Well, in freenet, fproxy (or it's 0.4 replacement) could be trivially hacked to translate links to freenet to http://localhost:8080 (this might be a good idea, even if freenet: plugins are not used, since this lets the user configure the address/port of their fproxy). Catching outside links would be trickier, and would need something more like David McNab's proxy, but it's not like the fixed global location of fproxy is an entirely satisfying solution as it is (particularly since there seems to be some confusion on which of 8081 or 8080 is the port to use) -- Benjamin Coates _______________________________________________ Devl mailing list Devl at freenetproject.org http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devl
