On Wed, 27 Dec 2000, Benjamin Coates wrote:
> > From "Mark J. Roberts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> >The root entry could be named "zarkney" for all we care. Using nothing
> >makes parsing the file difficult and has no advantage over using
> >index.html. These things are going to be used 99.9% of the time for
> >inserting Web sites, and Web sites assume index.html, so why change?
> >
> >--
> >Mark Roberts
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> If the parsing is so brittle that it can't handle an empty string, that's a
> problem aside from the whole index.html business. index.html isn't mandatory
> for HTTP, why would we want it to be mandatory on Freenet, particularly since
> there is no guarantee whatsoever that the mapped site will be HTML-based.
It's not mandatory, it just won't automatically load if it's not named
index.html. But again, the default string to load doesn't matter. And
making it equal to nothing looks weird, like someone forgot to put in one
of the keys.
index.html makes sense for anyone who's inserting a Web site
(99.9%). Using nothing is confusing for everyone.
--
Mark Roberts
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
Freenet-dev mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/freenet-dev
