In my opinion Metalinks are a representation of the actual resource BECAUSE they are a description of something that actually exists, and are not merely a link/pointer/reference. Hence TCN is correctly used here. And hence there is no problem at all.
And I think a philosophical discussion of "representation vs. description vs. complete view" in general and of the intension the authors of 1997 and 1998 RFCs had in particular is non-sense. There is a valid point for Link:, e.g. for referencing previous chapters of a document or telling the client "hey, I have an alternative representation here you didn't think of requesting yourself you might still be interested in", i.e when you actually want to reference/point another resource. When it comes to metalink TCN, the client explicitly has to ask the server for this representation, and hence there is no problem for non- metalink clients receiving the fairly degraded (to them at least) metalink view. (Maybe this should be clarified in the Metalink spec, especially that servers should assign a pretty low q=-value to metalink representations of a resource to avoid sending out metalinks to non- metalink clients). --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
