On Tue, Oct 31, 2006 at 10:33:58PM +0100, bbackde at googlemail.com wrote: > On 10/31/06, toad <toad at amphibian.dyndns.org> wrote: > >On Tue, Oct 31, 2006 at 09:34:23PM +0100, bbackde at googlemail.com wrote: > >> Why do you add this level of complication? Why could'nt a key with > >> filename just be recognizable, e.g. if you change the tralining part > >> "AAEC--8" into something different? > >> If it breaks compatability now this is no problem because its breaken > >> already... > > > >At the moment, a key with a superfluous filename will be requested > >successfully. > > > >The problem is that at the moment freenet URIs don't behave like normal > >URIs. You can add an arbitrary number of extra path elements (slash > >followed by string not including slash), and it still work. Which means > >we can't compare them. > >> > >> Some way to add an indication to the keys text representation would be > >> very helpful. > > > >Perhaps. What would you suggest? > > > >CHK at blah,blah,blah,filename.ext > >CHK at blah,blah,blah?filename=filename.ext > > I vote for a clear solution that indicates the different key types > (with/without filename) in the chk key itself, instead of adding > another incompatible new extension. > > As I said the (currently) fix extension AAEC--8 seems to be a good > choice for me, why not simply make it AAEC--9 or whatever for keys > WITH filenames? This allows applications to clearly differentiate the > different key types and how to handle them.
Because AAEC--9 actually means something? It specifies the cipher type and so on. I'm not sure what exactly you want here. -------------- 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/tech/attachments/20061031/b0b3c841/attachment.pgp>
