On Thu, 22 Nov 2001, Mathew Ryden wrote: > From: "thelema" <thelema at mh246001.truman.edu> > > > > not bad. If there's any annoying protocol issues, I'm the person to > > bother with them, especially in regards to the metadata spec. > > Could you possibly add a statement to the effect of 'every fieldset can have > additional optional 'key=value' pairs and that all fcp parsers are expected > to be able to handle them as such and still work flawlessly if only what is > specced is sent? > Ah, good point. This is one of the things that seems obvious to me, but is only so because of the length of time I've been working with freenet for.
> It would make sure that anyone creating such a fcp parser would not get > caught up on the spec being outdated. > yes, there's a level of explanation of what's going on that's missing. > (on an aside, i think the failed count really should be documented someplace > so the clients can keep track of it but sometime adam *will* finish wr which > probably won't include the same extra metadata so we have to watch out for > it) > > -Mathew > You mean wr isn't just a myth like avalon or the necronomicon? -- 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/20011123/9f9e0505/attachment.pgp>
