Re: enclosure status?

--- In [email protected], Lucas Gonze <lgonze@p...> wrote:
> On Sat, 9 Apr 2005, Vadim Zaliva wrote:
> Can we merge these two proposals, so that there is a minimal syntax
based 
> on Suzan's model and a maximal syntax based on yours?  I strongly agree

I think our minimal syntax is almost identical to Suzan's model.
All the fluff is optional.

However if somebody have any other, better merging suggestions, I am
very open to them.
> About Bittorrent in particular, that's a tough nut to crack because
BT is 
> so contrary to web architecture.  There must be prior art for
indirection 
> of that kind, though.  ?

Yeah, it is tough. After some duscussions mailing lists and in person
with other people I think we came up with reasolable solution in our
proposal, which avoids creating specific element for just this
protocol (like was suggested for RSS 2.0), keeps most of the syntax of
'enclosure' element, allows to be reused for other simmilar protocols
and preserves all enclosure meta-info like type and size.

Sincerely,
Vadim






 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rss-dev/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    [email protected]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/