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

From: Anthony Bryan <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2010 19:27:55 -0500

Relation Name:
   duplicate

Description:
   Refers to a resource whose available representations
   are byte-for-byte identical with the corresponding representations of
   the context IRI.

Reference:
   http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bryan-metalinkhttp

Notes:
   This relation is for static resources.  That is, an HTTP GET
   request on any duplicate will return the same representation.  It
   does not make sense for dynamic or POSTable resources and should not
   be used for them.

-- 
(( Anthony Bryan ... Metalink [ http://www.metalinker.org ]
  )) Easier, More Reliable, Self Healing Downloads

---

From: Mark Nottingham <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2010 16:00:09 +1100

Seems reasonable to me. 

I see you have Standards Track as the intended status -- have to talked to an AD about its future?

Regards,

On 12/11/2010, at 11:27 AM, Anthony Bryan wrote:

> _______________________________________________
> link-relations mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/link-relations

--
Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/

---

From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2010 16:40:26 +0800

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".

---

From: Anthony Bryan <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2010 03:10:26 -0500

> 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.

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2009JulSep/0746.html

---

From: Anthony Bryan <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2010 03:12:16 -0500

yes, I have.

are you asking about intended document status or about moving the
document forward?

---

From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2010 09:46:40 +0100

>NFC), will not be regarded as "duplicate". 

(That is a very bad example, an XML document that is in NFC cannot have
the same Infoset as an XML document that is not in NFC, even Canonical
XML does not emply character normalization if the input is UTF-8.)
-- 
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:[email-masked] · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/

---

From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2010 10:02:46 +0100

On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 09:46:40AM +0100,
 Bjoern Hoehrmann <[email-masked]> wrote 

> XML does not emply character normalization if the input is UTF-8.)

OK, I did not use the word Infoset properly. I should have say "the
same content" (where Content is not defined formally).

A better example:

<foo></foo>

is not a "duplicate" of:

<foo/>

which may be disconcerting.