Re: [GNUnet-developers] I concede, GNML can't work (*alone*)

[Tom Barnes-Lawrence]

On Sat, Jan 25, 2003 at 04:25:16PM -0500, Christian Grothoff wrote:
 <snip>
> Yes, you can specify that you want to publish updates to a file, but you need 
> to decide the question if there will be updates (and how often) once and for 
> all when you insert it the first time.

 That's the main thing. Whether or not *some* of the content wouldn't
be updatable isn't really a problem to me- as long as at least some of
it can be updated, that concept of a growing www-like network of references
I'm so keen on can become a reality (one way or another).


 <snip>
> Yes, you can refer to any content, other users, and no users. Of course, you 
> need to know the 'key' to that content in order to refer to it. But whichever 
> content you know how to download, you could refer to.

  Eeeexcelent. (takes up a Monty Burns pose)


 <snuoop>
> Note that you don't need a new makeup language, HTML will do fine, all you 
> need is a way to encode the GNUnet keys in URLs that will work with most 
> browsers (e.g. http://localhost:53535/namespace_in_hex/identifier_in_hex/). 
> Then you don't even have to worry about rendering or parsing -- just write a 
> proxy a la fproxy. I still have my doubts about the performance of such a 
> construction (and if people really want it), but that's a different question. 
> In fact, such a proxy may be the *easiest* way to implement a GUI for the 
> directories/namespaces.

  Urk! Whilst what you say is *strictly* true, I did state several reasons
why I feel that using HTML would *not* be an appropriate thing to use,
back in an email from around the 19th or 20th. If you can't find it, it's
in the archive on page:
http://mail.gnu.org/archive/html/gnunet-developers/2003-01/msg00017.html
(I shan't repeat it here)

  Besides, the language wasn't intended to be remotely complex, imagine
HTML with just the IMG, A, P, and possibly TABLE tags (or some similar
set), various restrictions on how those tags can be nested, and a few
other differences to (a)tailor it to GNUnet, and (b)make it simple to
render.

 OTOH, you do have a point- I do at least *appear* to be the only one
who is remotely interested in it. Ah well.


> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org

  Incidentally, I did try reading all the docs and that website (which had
the same docs I did), but there's still little details I don't get that
are stopping me using GPG. Is it a problem that I'm not using it on the
list? Someone's .sig mentioned it helping to stop spam (presumably by
filtering people without??)

Tom Barnes-Lawrence