On Tue, Nov 27, 2001 at 11:27:59PM -0600, thelema wrote:
> > 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.
Heh heh heh. There is a URI spec in theory.. there is at least the
Platonic ideal of a URI spec.. the fact that no such document exists in
practice merely reflects our slack assed documenting practices..
> Users see CHKs, but you're not suggesting that they be decimal. (I'm
> not suggesting that we base64 the date, though)
Yeah, but no one is going to twiddle the bits in the CHK by hand to,
say, go back 3 frames in the animation..
> > 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?)
Well, I see you are still sticking to the assumption that if the URI DBR
field is in decimal then this barely related thing must be in decimal
too. How does that *really* make anything easier to implement?
--
:: tavin cole (tcole at espnow.com) ::
if there's been a way to build it
there'll be a way to destroy it
things are not all that out of control
- stereolab
_______________________________________________
Devl mailing list
Devl at freenetproject.org
http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devl
