| ▲ | kbolino 3 days ago | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Using the query string to carry the sha256 hash but then saying the "hash parameter is verification metadata, not identity" doesn't make much sense. The ?query part of a URL is supposed to be sent to the server. If you want to add client-side (meta)data, you should use the #fragment part of a URL. See RFC 3986, sections 3.4 and 3.5: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc3986#section-3.4 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | sakjur 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
I'm not sure why string level manipulations would be necessary in a structured data format to begin with. You'll update the URL using tooling regardless, so why not utilize the language for it at the expense of a little bit of verbosity? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | geoah 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Was thinking the same. ?v=4#sha111 for defining the version and using fragment for hash verification seemed like a more interesting approach. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||