You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Following discussions on #61 and #62, I noticed that on #61 we decided to encode links using the multiaddress format, and on #62 we defined what we wanted for the textual representation.
My question is: do we want to really use multiaddress to encode IPLD paths or do we want to use a similar encoding scheme but different (because the domain is different).
I came up with the following idea. Let's say we have a path that looks like:
/ipfs/HASH/foo//bar/baz/@link/boo
We could encode it as:
<id for ipfs><hash length><multihash>
<id for internal link><length>"foo"
<id for external // link>
<id for internal link><length>"bar"
<id for internal link><length>"baz"
<id for external @link>
<id for internal link><length>"boo"
This is compatible with the multiaddress scheme, but do we implement it there or do we do it elsewhere. If so, where?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Following discussions on #61 and #62, I noticed that on #61 we decided to encode links using the multiaddress format, and on #62 we defined what we wanted for the textual representation.
My question is: do we want to really use multiaddress to encode IPLD paths or do we want to use a similar encoding scheme but different (because the domain is different).
I came up with the following idea. Let's say we have a path that looks like:
We could encode it as:
This is compatible with the multiaddress scheme, but do we implement it there or do we do it elsewhere. If so, where?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: