User: Password:
|
|
Subscribe / Log in / New account

Link Fingerprints

Link Fingerprints

Posted Aug 24, 2007 13:26 UTC (Fri) by rfunk (subscriber, #4054)
Parent article: Google Summer of Code: Mozilla Projects

I wonder if the link fingerprints concept might get a better reception if the hash
information were moved to another attribute of the HTML <a> tag.
So instead of this:
<a href="http://mirror.com/file#hash(sha256:abc123)">
we'd write this:
<a href="http://mirror.com/file" hash="sha256:abc123">

It would lose some of the functionality (harder to pass around links with intrinsic
hash information, but would still be useful.


(Log in to post comments)

Link Fingerprints

Posted Aug 24, 2007 16:33 UTC (Fri) by bronson (subscriber, #4806) [Link]

I agree 100%. IMO, best would be, as you say, to pass the hash in a separate attribute. Second best would be to put it in the query (http://mirror.com/file?sha256=abc123). But, changing the meaning of the fragment? That's just silly!

Let's say I want to send someone to a specific section, sec2, in a page on a remote site. Let's say further that I need to verify that the page is *exactly* what I was expecting.

<a href="http://mirror.com/a.html#sec2" hash="sha256:abc123"> -- attribute works
<a href="http://mirror.com/a.html?hash=sha256:abc123#sec2"> -- query works
<a href="http://mirror.com/a.html#sec2hash=sha256:abc123"> -- fragment fails!

Let's hope they give this some more thought...

Link Fingerprints

Posted Aug 24, 2007 16:47 UTC (Fri) by rfunk (subscriber, #4054) [Link]

Hmm, I don't like putting it in the query string, since that's considered reserved
for processing by the server. The other two are explicitly for client-side
processing.

Link Fingerprints

Posted Aug 26, 2007 18:43 UTC (Sun) by JohnNilsson (guest, #41242) [Link]

Why not just add a new scheme type for hash based data identifires

hash:[<hashtype>:]<hashcode>[@<uri>]

where @<uri> identifies a way to fetch the resource. If it is omitted the client could instead query any DHT.

Link Fingerprints

Posted Aug 26, 2007 22:50 UTC (Sun) by bronson (subscriber, #4806) [Link]

Because that's not backward compatible. A browser that doesn't know how to check the hash won't be able to open the link.


Copyright © 2017, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds