"lafs" is more the protocol, "tahoe" is more the Python implementation
[Imported from Trac: page NewCapDesign, version 30]
parent
206a1f693c
commit
ccb2b71e42
|
@ -22,8 +22,8 @@ Ticket #432 was the starting point: it contained a list of features.
|
||||||
Kevin Reid points out that the Tahoe calls URIs are not actually URIs (in the
|
Kevin Reid points out that the Tahoe calls URIs are not actually URIs (in the
|
||||||
established sense). To make them real, we need to:
|
established sense). To make them real, we need to:
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
* make them start with `x-tahoe:` or `tahoe:` (or `lafs:`),
|
* make them start with `x-lafs:` or `lafs:`,
|
||||||
register `tahoe:` with IANA (#418) (#683)
|
register `lafs:` with IANA (#418) (#683)
|
||||||
* understand how URI/URL/URNs are built, decide about hierarchical segments
|
* understand how URI/URL/URNs are built, decide about hierarchical segments
|
||||||
vs non-hierarchical segments. What's magical about a leading double-slash?
|
vs non-hierarchical segments. What's magical about a leading double-slash?
|
||||||
Do we need one?
|
Do we need one?
|
||||||
|
|
Loading…
Reference in a new issue