Subject: Re: [link-relations] NEW RELATION REQUEST: Relation name: "duplicate"

From: Eran Hammer-Lahav <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2010 01:04:50 -0700

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:link-relations-
> [email-masked]] On Behalf Of Anthony Bryan
> Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2010 12:10 AM

> On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 3:40 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]>
> wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 07:27:55PM -0500,
> >  Anthony Bryan <[email-masked]> wrote
> >  a message of 25 lines which said:
> >
> >>    Refers to a resource whose available representations are
> >>    byte-for-byte
> >
> > Was there any discussion (pointer, please) on this choice of defining
> > it as a byte-for-byte equivalence? Because it will be quite strict,
> > meaning that two very same XML documents, with the same infoset but
> > different representations (for instance, UTF-8 + NFC and UTF-8 without
> > NFC), will not be regarded as "duplicate".
> 
> for what we're doing, it needs to be byte-for-byte identical.
> 
> metalink clients usually deal with large file downloads, and under certain
> conditions, might request byte ranges from different servers and patch em
> together.

I think this explanation needs to be added to the note as it more properly constrains the definition and deployment than the GET/POST discussion in the current template.

EHL

> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2009JulSep/0746.html
> 
> --
> (( Anthony Bryan ... Metalink [ http://www.metalinker.org ]
>   )) Easier, More Reliable, Self Healing Downloads
> _______________________________________________
> link-relations mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/link-relations