On Wed, Mar 07, 2007 at 08:58:42AM -0600, David Sowder (Zothar) wrote: > > If it hasn't ever been authoritatively said that keys are always HTTP > URI encoded when talking with the node, then the node should do minimal > encoding as required by the specific protocol being used to talk with a > client: i.e. HTTP URI encoding as appropriate when FProxy is doing the > talking and maybe backslash encoded for \n via FCP (with no other encoding)?
That's just the problem: Minimal encoding is ambiguous. > > In any case, a decision needs to be made if it hasn't already and once > that decision is made, it should be very clearly spelled out in the > appropriate specs. The node should not accept input that's not > compliant with the spec (perhaps after a month or two of transition time > is allowed). Once it's in the spec, clients that don't conform to the > spec are considered broken, are fixed and then the problem is gone forever. It has been. Freenet URIs are a kind of URI. This has been our line forever. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20070308/82850abd/attachment.pgp>
