Re: Proposed Freenet MIME types

On Sun, Dec 10, 2006 at 02:34:18PM +0100, Jano wrote:
> Jerome Flesch wrote:
> 
> > http://wiki.freenetproject.org/AnotherFreenetIndexFormat
> > It doesn't allow to do a complete hierarchie, but you can use the tag
> > <option name="category" value="[...]" /> to sort the files (I will
> > probably do a list with the most common option names to avoid
> > duplication). If you think a complete hierarchie would be usefull, we can
> > update the specs.

Or you could introduce more tags. Aren't user agents supposed to ignore
tags they don't know? I suppose that includes tags included inside that
tag though, so it wouldn't be back compatible?
> 
> Thanks. Seen that, hierarchies could be constructed by using options. We
> could balance if we prefer explicit support or a convention on some option
> names used for this. I.e:
> 
> <option name="folder" value="some relative path" /> 
> 
> and so on...
> 
> Using options has the advantage that no special measures have to be taken
> (besides documentation, as you say), and current parsers would be valid
> even if they would miss the hierarchy. Other improvements handled in this
> way would also be transparently handled. The obvious drawback is that
> unaware coders could misuse a reserved option name, although I see this as
> minor given the size of freenet.

_______________________________________________
Tech mailing list
[email protected]
http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tech

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFFfZh0A9rUluQ9pFARAuhCAJ49wh1QoNi6Qb0uAWH6hxRxcUL0WgCgowGk
ZebREFfdhZafO65HbdnaJT8=
=11dY
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----