Re: [packaging-on-the-web] Zip CAN be streaming (#14)

OK :) Although I might disagree with the assumption that the CDR would not match the file entries - it's quite tricky to do such a mistake - and as such it is just as likely to become a mistake in say your `rel=describedby` to point to a file that is not included, or for SPF to end early.

In http://w3ctag.github.io/packaging-on-the-web/#parts you say

> It is possible for multiple parts within a package to have the same part URL, either because they have exactly the same Content-Location header or because their Content-Location headers resolve to the same URL. Parts with the same part URL SHOULD be distinguishable by having different values for other headers commonly used for content negotiation, such as Content-Type or Content-Language. When these headers are used to distinguish between parts, they SHOULD be listed within the Vary header for the parts that share the same part URL. For example: 

Supporting this kind of content-negotiation-overloading  I think is a stronger argument against ZIP in packaging-on-the-web usecase - this would have to solved using a separate manifest or similar in a ZIP scenario (as we do in our [RO Bundle](https://w3id.org/bundle/#manifest-aggregates) with a `mediatype` entry combined with a `retrievedFrom`).

---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/w3ctag/packaging-on-the-web/issues/14#issuecomment-69177828