I was just taking a look at: http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2141.txt
and I was wondering why freenet's "URLs" such as CHK, SSK, KSK, etc. were not done as URN's? Particularly, it seems that CHK's are the same as something more general: urn:sha1:<sha1 hash>. It seems a shame not to take advantage of these ideas. Viewed in this light, freenet is a system for locating and publishing certain urn types (maybe urn:sha1: urn:freenet:<freenet key here>). Freenet "URLs" are not URLs at all. They do tell you the location of data, only a standard way to refer to it. One answer to this question might surely be: "We don't care about buzzword compliance" so it doesn't matter what you call the freenet urls. On the other hand, interoperability is cool. If you standardized on URN's then one can imagine bridging different content systems (like freenet, gnutella, etc... with the use of urn's) quite easily. Any thoughts on this? Oscar Boykin. -- boykin at pobox.com http://pobox.com/~boykin ICQ: 5118680 Key fingerprint = 159A FA02 DF12 E72F B68F 5B2D C368 3BCA 36D7 CF28 -------------- 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/20011001/03bda3c2/attachment.pgp>
