On Wed, 27 Dec 2000, Brandon wrote:
> > to typing "freenet:MSK@pigdog//" and having everything happen behind the
> > scenes where it belongs. That makes me favor your proposal. [2]
>
> This syntax looks very nice, but assumes the site to not be in a
> subspace. Most sites will probably look like my examples above.
No. With automatic date-updating redirects, most sites will look just like
that. The KSK will be an auto-date-updating redirect to a mapfile inserted
in a SSK.
> > make the MSK any more logical? I see MSKs as a legitimate extension of any
> > key. I mean, all we want to say is "this key is a mapfile" and "look this
> > up." To me, at least, limiting them to SSKs actually adds confusion.
>
> I also seem them as an extension to any key. But I'm not sure if anyone
> will actually use them with other keys.
>
> > [1] I'm in favor of assuming that, in your proposal,
> > "freenet:MSK@KSK@pigdog//" equals "freenet:MSK@KSK@pigdog//index.html".
>
> I see no reason not to allow for this. It seems quite sensible.
> I would say, though, that you should be able to specify in the map file a
> subspace public key for the site so that even using this exact same syntax
> the site can be in a subspace.
>
> That way, if the KSK is a date-based redirect it can redirect you to
> today's map file and then map against that into a subspace. All very
> smoothly.
Again, the new date-updating redirects eliminate the need for kludges like
that. (You're basically combining the date-updating redirect and the
mapfile, which is not at all good.)
> > mechanism, "freenet:pigdog//" would imply
> > "freenet:MSK@KSK@pigdog//index.html" while "freenet:KSK@pigdog//" would be
> > exactly what is looks like. The 3 people who access KSKs with // in them
> > will be able to continue to do so with FProxy. The rest of us can enjoy
> > URIs like "freenet:britneyspears//".
>
> I really would like implied MSK@'s. I think that would be great. I'm a
> little wary (but not unconvincable) about this particular proposal because
> you're assuming MSK on // and KSK on no //, which is kind of confusing if
> there are any KSKs with // in them. At the very least, this behaviour
> needs to be very well documented in big letters. But alas, I don't see a
> better way to do it. Maybe somebody else should weigh in on the subject.
Consider the relative proportions of MSKs like "freenet:pigdogjournal//"
to KSKs which include "//". What is it, 1,000 to 1? 10,000 to 1? Even
more? I've never even seen a KSK with two slashes that I didn't insert.
It is a stupid reason to corrupt our beautiful keys, IMHO.
--
Mark Roberts
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
Freenet-dev mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/freenet-dev
