[GNUnet-developers] Re: URI suggestion

[Christian Grothoff]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

I'm moving some discussion between Igor & myself over here into the public 
since I'm not sure where we're heading :-).  

On Saturday 20 September 2003 04:27 pm, Igor wrote:
> > You don't like fruit salat? [Refering to very expressive URLs]
>
> I only eat meat. And cookies.
>
>
> Anyway, I added the URI handling routines to CVS. I didn't
> actually modify any other code to use them yet. The new
> routines seem to work, but you may want to check the concept
> out first to see if its good enough. It turned out a bit
> too messy for my tastes. :(

I agree.  Maybe we should start a discussion WWW-page just like the one that 
we had for namespaces & directories to explore the possibilities?
I'm not quite sure where we're heading with the URIs, that is where they 
should be used and where not.  For example, I think that gnunet-insert and 
gnunet-download are distinct is a good idea, so mangling URLs for these two 
tools in one format may not really be the best idea (fruit salat).  But if we 
were to use URLs in the API between libesed2 and 3rd party clients, it may 
just be the right answer to add the "insert/" or "download/" action 
identification to the URL.

I'd really like to hear other opinions on the matter of what the URLs should 
be used for; that seems to be more important than the question what they 
should contain or what their exact format should be.

Christian
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE/bkZL9tNtMeXQLkIRAomPAKCQbEE4ImO8VYvFLAe4rVbeCXD6QgCePQ2W
cir85+uY6o8Pqp0kKivMpvc=
=D3aj
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----