Magnet link in IPFS #25
Comments
|
IPFS already has its own link, URI formats, which are 100% unix-safe: /ipfs/<hash>/<path>
/ipns/<hash>/<path>
/ipns/<domain>/<path> # hacky shortcut to one below
/dns/<domain>/<path>You can already use this in browsers. we are working on the many pieces necessary for resolution to work in browsers out of the box:
|
|
Great! Thank you so much! |
|
should we keep these open, or close them? am not sure if people will see them if closed? |
|
Let it open, so others too can comment, thanks! |
|
URLs in form For example, they won't be broken in the middle to be forcibly wrapped to the next line on a traditional (80 characters per line) terminal unless the path (after the hash) exceeds ≈28 characters. That's at least twice as good as the old 8.3 character limit. They are also less likely to cause horizontal scrollbars in modern editors or HTML textareas. Unfortunately, such short URLs are supported, as far as I can tell, only by the addon for Firefox. For the sake of comparison:
|
|
the canonical paths will start to look like: |
|
please note that the it's annoying right now, but it will lead to a much better future if we fix the massive UNIX / Web rift. |
|
Does this actually work properly with the web's security model? If different IPFS sites are just different paths under one hostname, then under the Same-origin policy, all IPFS sites would appear to have the same “origin”, which could be problematic. It's also inconvenient that IPFS sites are unable to use absolute paths with |
|
This is something we hope to address with per page suborigins: https://w3c.github.io/webappsec-suborigins/ |
|
This issue was moved to https://discuss.ipfs.io/t/magnet-link-in-ipfs/385 |
jxxp9 commentedAug 25, 2015
Will it be possible to fetch and resolve a typical bittorrent magnet link using IPFS? This way, those link (referring to well identified content) don't get broken if (hopefully soon) we'll use IPFS to share files. They'd need to be mapped to corresponding IPFS object, I guess. But is it doable, theoretically, or I'm totally wrong?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: