Eran Hammer-Lahav and Mark Nottingham have informed me that using
transparent content negotiation for serving a "description" of a file,
and not an alternative version (like PNG vs JPG) of the same thing has
been ruled against by the W3C TAG. see
http://esw.w3.org/topic/FindingResourceDescriptions
"Other ways of getting a description through HTTP
* Use content negotiation. If you ask for RDF, you get the
description. If you ask for something else, you get the thing
described. (The TAG, TimBL, and others have pointed out that this
contradicts web architecture, which requires that content negotiation
choose among things that all carry the same information. That goes for
CN between RDF and HTML as much as it does for CN between GIF and
JPEG.)"
the correct, web architecture complient way to do this is apparently
the HTTP Link header:
Link: <http://example.com/resource.metalink>; rel="describedby";
type="application/metalink+xml";
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-nottingham-http-link-header-03
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hammer-discovery-01
--
(( Anthony Bryan ... Metalink [ http://www.metalinker.org ]
)) Easier, More Reliable, Self Healing Downloads
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Metalink Discussion" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/metalink-discussion?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
