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
I think someone will call their source "safetensor". Or use brahmic/chinese/... script which most of the world can't read/type/distinguish with various devices not even having the correct glyphs installed. Or start to use different naming conventions for types of resources. Maybe people will have different ideas about whether id should be unique on its own or if they have 10x the same id as long as the format is different. Or many of the other things that typically ruin any broader usefulness/usability.
Why not simply go with organization:hashtype=alphanumeric_hash and just suggest using SHA-256 unless there is a reason not to?
If on the other hand having human-readable information is the point of this scheme, the human-readable parts likely shouldn't be optional and they should probably come from a clearly defined list of possible options so that humans can (in a single authoritative place) go look up what they mean and what all the options are.
reacted with thumbs up emoji reacted with thumbs down emoji reacted with laugh emoji reacted with hooray emoji reacted with confused emoji reacted with heart emoji reacted with rocket emoji reacted with eyes emoji
-
I think someone will call their source "safetensor". Or use brahmic/chinese/... script which most of the world can't read/type/distinguish with various devices not even having the correct glyphs installed. Or start to use different naming conventions for types of resources. Maybe people will have different ideas about whether id should be unique on its own or if they have 10x the same id as long as the format is different. Or many of the other things that typically ruin any broader usefulness/usability.
Why not simply go with organization:hashtype=alphanumeric_hash and just suggest using SHA-256 unless there is a reason not to?
If on the other hand having human-readable information is the point of this scheme, the human-readable parts likely shouldn't be optional and they should probably come from a clearly defined list of possible options so that humans can (in a single authoritative place) go look up what they mean and what all the options are.
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions