7 Apr
2020
7 Apr
'20
5:44 a.m.
On Sun, Apr 05, 2020 at 01:38:43PM +0200, Robin Broda wrote:
If the database gets extended by an additional field for every new network layer people come up with, where do we draw the line?
This needs a solution that does not require the database format to be altered to suit protocol-specific metadata.
This was the first point that stood out to me, too. Can IPFS IDs have some representation as a URI? I'm spitballing here, but I'd far rather see e.g. the existing %FILENAME% registry extended to support some format like ipfs://baBbysFirStIPFScOmMitId;foo=bar That still feels a little shoehorn-y to me, but more comfortable than buying a new shoe for each new storage protocol supported in future (magnet anyone? ;)). BR, David