I think mimetype could be useful. The other tags aren't that important, 
IMHO. Just my two cents.
/ Hampus

Anthony Bryan skrev, Den 2009-07-26 00:19:
> I should have a slightly updated version of this up soon.
>
> here are the elements that are not in the ID. I've seen <mimetype> in
> use, that may be worth adding to the ID?
>
> <changelog>, <tags>, <mimetype>, <relations>, <releasedate>,
> <mulitmedia>, <screenshot>, <upgrade>, <bittorrent>
>
> On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 7:44 PM, Anthony Bryan<[email protected]> wrote:
>   
>> somehow this got passed on & the "third edition" was never finished.
>> it's a shame because the older version is less accurate/updated.
>>
>> I'm going to try to finish it up in the next few weeks, so people have
>> something reliable to go by until the ID is finished.
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 11:03 PM, Anthony Bryan<[email protected]> 
>> wrote:
>>     
>>> ugh, what's wrong?
>>>
>>> I've tried to incorporate all the comments and uploaded new drafts to
>>> http://groups.google.com/group/metalink-discussion/files
>>>
>>> On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 5:49 PM, Bram Neijt <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>       
>>>>  I think the biggest reason for 3339 becoming the chosen format was
>>>>  because XML schema datatypes uses it (
>>>>  http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema11-2/#dateTime )
>>>>
>>>>  Looking into this further, I think you might have a point. Just
>>>>  checking "new Date('1937-01-01T12:00:27.87+00:20')" fails :-S
>>>>
>>>>  Bram
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 7:19 PM, Nils <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>  >  I know that a lot of languages have either rfc 822 or 2822 support,
>>>>  >  while most are lacking 3339.
>>>>  >  Javascript, the language of dTa, has support to parse 822 and 2822 and
>>>>  >  generate 2822, but lacks 3339.
>>>>  >  While it shouldn't be that hard to roll out some custom implementation
>>>>  >  I still don't see the advantages of 3339 over e.g. 2822.
>>>>         
>
>
>
>   


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to