W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2007

Re: Metalink: higher availability and integrity downloads

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2007 10:00:51 +0200
Message-ID: <46305C33.4010206@gmx.de>
To: albryan@comcast.net
CC: ietf-http-wg@w3.org

albryan@comcast.net wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> Metalink is an XML format that lists multiple ways (FTP/HTTP/P2P/rsync) to retrieve files, along with checksums and other metadata. It is mostly used by download managers.
> 
> Metalink is not restricted to just HTTP, but Lisa Dusseault suggested I post here, looking for "expressions of interest in the basic concept, and volunteers to help with the work (at the very least, reviewers)."
> 
> Some basic features the information in a metalink can be used for:
> - Listing multiple mirrors for higher availability.
> - Automatic error recovery and repair of corrupted downloads.
> - Add a file or multiple files to a download queue.
> - Share a library of files between filesharing applications.
> - Simplified download pages.
> 
> For more information:
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metalink
> 
> "Metalink solves the first problem  how to find the most speedy way to download a file  by grouping different download protocols into one protocol. This enables Metalink clients to automatically switch between different mirror servers without explicit user instructions. Not only multiple server information is described but also meta-data (e.g., the location of the server, document tags and license)."
> 
> http://www.geospatialsemanticweb.com/2007/02/25/metalink-unifies-internet-downloads
> 
> Thanks,

Anthony,

some thoughts...:

- Is your plan to turn this into an IETF publication? I wasn't really sure.

- If this is already deployed, you probably should start the 
registration process for the MIME type. See 
<http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4288>.

- There seems to be an overlap with extended XLinks (see 
<http://www.w3.org/TR/xlink/#extended-link>). Did you consider re-using 
that vocabulary?

- As Eric pointed out, the "!" notation in fragment identifiers (see 
Section 1.7) isn't really compatible with how URIs work (see RFC3986).

Best regards, Julian
Received on Thursday, 26 April 2007 08:01:10 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:50:09 GMT