James, On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 9:08 PM, James Snell <[email protected]> wrote: > > I've noticed that Google has actually started using an etag attribute > in their API which has roughly the same concerns about binding, etc. > I'm a big fan of including as much metadata as practical possible > without going overboard and think that a hash attribute (or set of > hash attribute options not limited to md5) would be a good thing in > general. I've been starting to dust off a few of the old I-D's this > week starting with the tombstones draft (again) so perhaps I'll also > pull out that link extensions draft and give it a do-over.
that is wonderful! I'm really happy to hear you're doing this. Let me know if I can help in any way. Specifically, I think le:md5 is nice to keep since it corresponds to the HTTP Header. But I agree it would be good with support for more algorithms. Either as multiple attributes (le:sha1, le:sha2 etc), or le:checksum + le:algorithm. Or perhaps something akin to the value space of <http://open.vocab.org/docs/hasChecksum>. Best regards, Niklas
