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.
>>> 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.
--
(( 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.
