On 12月25日, 午前4:07, Anthony Bryan <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 24, 2009 at 8:32 AM, Tatsuhiro Tsujikawa
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > Hash: SHA1
>
> > Anthony Bryan wrote:
> >>> I just thought how clients should treat URL if priority is missing.
> >>> If a Metalink contains URL with priority and URL without it, should
> >>> client assume that URL without it have lowest priority or opposite?
>
> >> I'd guess lowest if it wasn't important enough to put in there. what
> >> do you think? we can save that for the client spec.
>
> > I think we should state that client should treat resources at lowest
> > priority if priority attribute is missing, because we need consensus
> > between generator and clients that client will use resources in the
> > order as generators expect.
>
> > I propose to add following at the end of 4.2.8.1 and 4.2.16.1:
>
> > If priority attribute is missing, clients should treat those elements
> > as lowest priority.
>
> how about?
>
> elements without a priority attribute are considered to have the
> lowest priority, i.e. 999999.
>
> is the whole text confusing? I've added a few small clarifications.
>
> 4.2.8.1. The "priority" Attribute
>
> metalink:metaurl (The "metalink:metaurl" Element) elements MAY have a
> priority attribute. Values MUST be positive integers between 1 and
> 999999. Lower values indicate a higher priority. metalink:metaurl (The
> "metalink:metaurl" Element) elements without a priority attribute are
> considered to have the lowest priority, i.e. 999999. The priority
> values of metalink:metaurl (The "metalink:metaurl" Element) and
> metalink:url (The "metalink:url" Element) elements are compared and
> those with the lowest values, starting with 1, are used first.
> Multiple metalink:metaurl (The "metalink:metaurl" Element) and
> metalink:url (The "metalink:url" Element) elements MAY have the same
> priority, i.e. one BitTorrent .torrent file and three FTP URIs could
> have priority="1". See also the "priority" attribute of the
> metalink:url (The "metalink:url" Element) element.
>
Looks good for me.
> >>> I also found metalink:logo and metalink:origin has metalinkUri construct
> >>> with parenthesis.
>
> >>> metalinkOrigin =
> >>> element metalink:origin {
> >>> metalinkCommonAttributes,
> >>> attribute dynamic { xsd:boolean }?,
> >>> (metalinkUri)
> >>> }
>
> >>> Other elements have not parenthesis.
>
> >>> metalinkMetaURL =
> >>> element metalink:metaurl {
> >>> metalinkCommonAttributes,
> >>> attribute priority { xsd:positiveInteger {
> >>> maxInclusive = "999999"}}?,
> >>> attribute type { text },
> >>> attribute name { text }?,
> >>> metalinkUri
> >>> }
>
> >>> I think this is not significant for validation. But should we remove
> >>> parenthesis?
>
> >> I noticed that too. I'm not sure, but looking at Atom schema
> >>http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4287#appendix-B
> >> it looks like it is always in paretheses.
>
> >> atomIcon = element atom:icon {
> >> atomCommonAttributes,
> >> (atomUri)
> >> }
>
> >> atomId = element atom:id {
> >> atomCommonAttributes,
> >> (atomUri)
>
> > OK, I think we can leave them untouched, because it causes no harm.
>
> I changed them to be more consistent with what we are borrowing from Atom.
>
Great, it looks much better. Thanks.
> --
> (( 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.
