David 'Bombe' Roden wrote:
> On Sunday 28 May 2006 00:16, David McNab wrote:
>
>> CHK@aHk9P1BLcigiZjSqV2cUQtY5JNNWJbqBPwnZ3dM8Hy4,-4C87kRu4QB7Z5UmZpSpn
>> iBlrmwJtDKr35AZ-m-jDEg,AAEC--8.txt
>
> Well, this is pretty ugly, if you ask me. From what you said on IRC I
> thought you'd want something like CHK@aud32,fjewf,aaa/file.ext. Which I
> would find much more logical: people can deduct from the filename what
> it is (though the filename may be fake, of course) and fproxy can get a
> filename for background downloading from it. Also, that is the way it
> was with Freenet 0.5.
That's a semantic problem because the slash implies a multiplicity of
items available within the one CHK.
If you want a URI to be more self-explanatory, try something like:
CHK@blahblah,yadayada.explicit_alien_pr0n.jpg
That will work fine in the new node builds.
--
Cheers
David
%20and%20fproxy%20can%20get%20a%20%0A>%20>%20filename%20for%20background%20downloading%20from%20it.%20Also,%20that%20is%20the%20way%20it%20%0A>%20>%20was%20with%20Freenet%200.5.%0A>%20%0A>%20That's%20a%20semantic%20problem%20because%20the%20slash%20implies%20a%20multiplicity%20of%0A>%20items%20available%20within%20the%20one%20CHK.%0A>%20%0A>%20If%20you%20want%20a%20URI%20to%20be%20more%20self-explanatory,%20try%20something%20like:%0A>%20%0A>%20%20%20CHK@blahblah,yadayada.explicit_alien_pr0n.jpg%0A>%20%0A>%20That%20will%20work%20fine%20in%20the%20new%20node%20builds.%0A>%20%0A>%20%0A>%20%0A>%20 "Reply to this message")