On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 10:13 AM, Tatsuhiro<[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Aug 5, 3:24 pm, Anthony Bryan <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 9:38 AM, Hampus Wessman<[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> > Hello everyone! >> >> > This is not a review of the internet draft document as such, but rather >> > some more general changes to the structure of the format that I think >> > would make metalinks a lot easier to use in computer programs The >> > changes should be fairly easy to add to the ID if Anthony and the rest >> > of you like them. Sorry for suggesting all these changes at this late >> > stage, but I think they are important so please take a look at them at >> > least. >> >> it's not too late by any means, thanks for taking the time Hampus! >> >> > My suggestions would make the new format backwards incompatible, but >> > AFAIK the ID isn't completely compatible with most current >> > implementations anyway (not meta data at least). I think it is more >> > important to make the standard as good as possible than making it >> > backwards compatible. Clients with support for 3.0 will be able to add >> > support for the new standard easily anyway. >> >> it's been my intention to keep the ID version as close to the current >> version as possible (at least for assisting downloads), until it MUST >> not be. >> >> this is because the ID is a re-specification of something we have a >> few years experience with, and 50+ programs that currently support it. >> at my last count, 9 of those were closed source & will be slow to >> update. most of the open source clients will probably be slow to >> update, even in the current "search & replace" version. >> >> I've been trying to balance an attempt at (almost) perfect and >> backwards compatible. I've tried to slim things down & make them >> simpler. >> >> now is the perfect time for change! >> >> how bad are things currently? & how much better will we make them with >> changes? what will be the incentive for authors to do more work? >> >> also, it's probably a good time to discuss what to do in the >> changeover period to convert back & forth between versions. a python >> script, .exe for windows users, XSLT, a web service... >> >> these are some great suggestions! >> >> why don't we take them on, starting with less invasive first. that >> would be #3, 4, 2, then 1 I think. >> > > I like the idea 'Change 2: remove "piece" attribute from piece > hashes'. > Actually aria2 sorts piece hash data by its index! > > I think the current ID is very well written in terms of compatibility > and improvements Anthony mentioned, but hey, I don't say there are no > room for change ;)
thanks! can you (plural :) suggest new text for the hash element in the ID? >> so for #3, you suggest we remove metadata inheritance & these elements >> from <files>: >> copyright >> description >> identity >> language >> license >> logo >> os >> publisher >> version >> >> that makes things quite a bit simpler... >> > > I agree to change#3. Metadata inheritance is too complicated for its > own good. > I think metalink file is generally produced by machine, not human, it > can copy all metadata to all file without complain and we should not > care about the size of XML. If size matters, we can use gzip to > transfer compressed file. ok, metadata inheritance is out! check svn for newest version :) -- (( 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
