- From: Anthony Bryan <anthonybryan@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2009 16:03:10 -0400
- To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Cc: Henrik Nordstrom <henrik@henriknordstrom.net>, "Ford, Alan" <alan.ford@roke.co.uk>, Robert Siemer <Robert.Siemer-http@backsla.sh>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org, Mark Handley <m.handley@cs.ucl.ac.uk>
On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 3:39 AM, Mark Nottingham<mnot@mnot.net> wrote: > I don't think so; 'alternate' doesn't specify for what purpose it's an > alternate, and you need a very precise definition (byte-for-byte equivalence > of representations). 'alternate' is often used to mean "here's a copy in > another format" and similar. > > Perhaps you should mint 'duplicate'... Ok, this is what I have in the ID now: Link Relation Type Registration: "duplicate" o Relation Name: duplicate o Description: Refers to an identical resource that is a byte-for-byte equivalence of representations. o Reference: This specification. -- (( Anthony Bryan ... Metalink [ http://www.metalinker.org ] )) Easier, More Reliable, Self Healing Downloads
Received on Monday, 31 August 2009 20:03:53 UTC