- From: Anthony Bryan <anthonybryan@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2008 19:41:25 -0400
- To: "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: "Dave Cridland" <dave@cridland.net>, "general discussion of application-layer protocols" <discuss@apps.ietf.org>, "Applications Review List" <apps-review@ietf.org>, xml-dev@lists.xml.org, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On Tue, Sep 2, 2008 at 5:35 AM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote: > Dave Cridland wrote: >> >> ... >> 11) Section 4.2.17: Does that "type" attribute totally suck? Of course, >> you have to have it because every man, his dog, and his pet hampster has >> decided that only HTTP is allowed, these days, for absolutely everything, >> leading to a totally useless URI scheme which essentially fails to describe >> the actual resource it's supposedly a locator for. Okay, rant over, back to >> the review. >> ... > > "4.2.17. The "metalink:url" Element > > > The "metalink:url" element contains the IRI of a file. All IRIs > should lead to identical files, except in the case of type > "bittorrent" where the IRI should lead to a .torrent file." > > Actually, don't do that. Don't make the meaning of an element totally > dependent on an attribute on it. If torrent files are a special case (can > there be more...?), then define a separate element. I'm sure there COULD be more, but I don't know of any other right now. Do you suggest a torrent specific element, or something generic? Thanks Julian. -- (( Anthony Bryan ... Metalink [ http://www.metalinker.org ] )) Easier, More Reliable, Self Healing Downloads
Received on Tuesday, 2 September 2008 23:42:05 UTC