On Fri, Jul 03, 2009 at 04:27:53PM -0400, Ant Bryan wrote: > > (a) <metadata> name > no one has a better name for URIs to torrents/metalinks? :)
Things I thought of were
"metaurl"
"alternative location"
"other description"
"p2p"
> (b) <verification> info does not apply to <metadata> files (torrents,
> metalinks) but to the files the metadata points to.
It *might* actually be used to verify content downloaded from the
referenced location. And thinking about it, it should have precedence
over verification metadata from the torrent, IMO.
> (c) need to add a file attribute to <metadata> so you can specify one
> file from a multi-file torrent or metalink. (see Matt's discussion,
> did we resolve this?)
I for one don't see particular value in multi-file torrents, but I see
the issue - I haven't a solution at hand though...
> (d) <type> name
>
> I think <type> could be interesting/useful. but I think we need a more
> descriptive name, like <dynamic> or...any ideas?
>
> 4.2.16. The "metalink:type" Element
>
> The "metalink:type" element is a Text construct that describes
> whether the IRI from "metalink:origin" in a Metalink will contain
> dynamic updated Metalinks or static content that is not updated.
>
> metalinkType =
> element metalink:type {
> "static" | "dynamic"
> }
Thinking about this, the practical relevance of the field at all might
be marginal. A validity of a metalink could as well be specified by
using existing HTTP semantics (Expires, Last-Modified, ETag,
Cache-control headers, and such) which would also allow finder control.
> (e) where a metalink is static or dynamic, it will be nice to have
> <origin> to know where it came from, if you're finding the metalink
> from some other site. so I need to change or removed the following
> text:
>
> o If metalink:type is "dynamic", metalink:metalink elements MAY
> contain exactly one metalink:origin element.
Would it be practical to just always specify the origin?
> (f) generator has a name, URI, and version.
>
> this whole section is borrowed from atom, I wonder how much it's used
> in atom & if it helps? we currently can include a generator name. is a
> URI and version really necessary for figuring out if a generator is
> spurting out bad metalinks? isn't <origin> a better way to track down
> an offender?
I think that origin and generator are orthogonal - the origin is
valuable to know in itself (and probably more so), but the used
generator is also useful. Mainly for informational and debugging
purposes. An URI wouldn't be necessary, I think that recommending
something like HTTP User-agent (should give name of generator and
version) would be sufficient, in a single field.
(I always liked the HTTP spec for the User-agent - it recommends to put
more significant things in the front of the string, and the less
significant things at the end, which makes kind of sense)
http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec14.html#sec14.43
Peter
--
"WARNING: This bug is visible to non-employees. Please be respectful!"
SUSE LINUX Products GmbH
Research & Development
pgpwIz9HWnKHz.pgp
Description: PGP signature
