On Wed, May 30, 2001 at 01:19:25PM -0400, Benjamin Coates wrote: > >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.
That will be cool, but please think about how you can make this as backward compatable with FProxy (which many people will still be using) as possible. > 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) But the necessity to do either of these can be avoided by encouraging people to stick with the least common denominator which is href="http://localhost:8081/xxx"; links outside Freenet, and href="/SSK%40xxx" links within Freenet. 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/20010530/5f4185b0/attachment.pgp>
