On Tue, 27 Nov 2001, Tavin Cole wrote: > On Tue, Nov 27, 2001 at 06:36:09PM -0600, thelema wrote: > > I think you're exaggerating a bit there ;) > I was. I was trying to make a point.
> There isn't just one big spec that covers everything under the sun. > The URIs and the fieldset metadata are two different and independently > specified things. Users don't see the fieldset metadata, but they do > see the URIs and may sometimes have to manipulate them manually -- > which is the good reason for using decimal instead of hex that you > claim doesn't exist. > There's no URI spec. there's just the metadata format. That's it. Users see CHKs, but you're not suggesting that they be decimal. (I'm not suggesting that we base64 the date, though) > I don't believe that using decimal in the URI could really confuse > anybody. It's just another elegance/consistency myth. > I'm just trying to be consistent on everything so that people have the easiest job possible implementing things. If now's the time to be changing things, I'm all for moving to completely decimal-based metadata specs. (why did we move to hex in the first place? because it looks cool?) > :: tavin cole (tcole at espnow.com) :: > Thelema -- 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/20011127/c8c31d5e/attachment.pgp>
