iipc/warc-specifications

Issues

• WARC-Protocol field proposal

  #42 opened 6 years ago by ato
  12

• WARC-Resource-Type field possibilities (feedback wanted)

  #96 opened 7 months ago by ikreymer
  8

• Please document possible hopsFromSeed values

  #59 opened 5 years ago by RvanVeenendaal
  2

• Multiple extension-fields of the same type on the same record?

  #95 opened 9 months ago by acidus99
  2

• WARC-Cipher-Suite field proposal

  #86 opened a year ago by acidus99
  6

• WIP: Document practices that may benefit from standardisation

  #54 opened 5 years ago by anjackson
  3

• Version dates on WARC Implementation Guidelines might be wrong

  #91 opened a year ago by Mr0grog
  0

• SHA256 or SHA-256?

  #80 opened 2 years ago by nclarkekb
  17

• WARC-Protocol addition proposal: Gopher

  #87 opened a year ago by TheTechRobo
  1

• Gemini as a protocol for the WARC-Protocol field

  #85 opened a year ago by acidus99
  1

• Content-Length-GZIP header (More GZIP tricks)

  #47 opened 6 years ago by bsdphk
  32

• Should WARC-Identified-Payload-Type be ignored if specified?

  #84 opened a year ago by nurhafiz
  3

• Proposal for new record field: WARC-Json-Metadata

  #27 opened 9 years ago by ikreymer
  12

• WARC revision 1.1 (augmentation): create a new record type to record differences

  #30 opened 9 years ago by saraaubry
  17

• Revisit example in section 10.6 uses message/http not application/http

  #55 opened 5 years ago by ato
  0

• Minor typo in grammar definition for 'token'

  #39 opened 6 years ago by ato
  0

• Example 'revisit' record has incorrect WARC-Profile value

  #36 opened 6 years ago by ato
  0

• Example 'revisit' record has invalid HTTP version

  #37 opened 6 years ago by ato
  0

• Content-Type grammar inconsistent with examples

  #38 opened 6 years ago by ato
  1

• warcfile offset: compressed or uncompressed?

  #76 opened 2 years ago by isoos
  2

• Truncated responses are not anymore required to be marked with WARC-Truncated since 1.1

  #62 opened 2 years ago by JustAnotherArchivist
  1

• Duplicate definition of the payload of request records and insufficient definition for truncated responses

  #75 opened 2 years ago by JustAnotherArchivist
  1

• Missing W3CDTF reference for date format

  #70 opened 3 years ago by JustAnotherArchivist
  1

• Incomplete sentence in WARC-Format 1.1 section 6.3.3 "response - other URI schemes"

  #63 opened 2 years ago by sebastian-nagel
  4

• Stray "other URI schemes"

  #61 opened 2 years ago by JustAnotherArchivist
  1

• Deprecate line folding

  #74 opened 3 years ago by ato
  2

• Amending annex D to promote zstd instead of gzip

  #53 opened 3 years ago by cldellow
  16

• Insufficient definition of `quoted-string`

  #71 opened 3 years ago by JustAnotherArchivist
  5

• Harmonise language for which header fields are permitted in which records

  #73 opened 3 years ago by JustAnotherArchivist
  0

• Ambiguous `WARC-Filename` value definition

  #72 opened 3 years ago by JustAnotherArchivist
  0

• HTTP/2: Server push proposal (WARC-Push-Promised-From)

  #43 opened 6 years ago by ato
  3

• Encoded-words underspecified and unsupported

  #67 opened 4 years ago by yotann2
  1

• Question: Usage of LWS on writing

  #65 opened 4 years ago by blueeberry0o
  2

• WARC-Block-Digest and WARC-Payload-Digest examples are invalid

  #64 opened 4 years ago by ato
  0

• 'WARC-Identified-Payload-Type' allowed for request, revisit, continuation?

  #49 opened 6 years ago by wumpus
  2

• Section 8 in conflict with section 6 for warc-fields

  #50 opened 6 years ago by wumpus
  1

• Duplicate definition of w3c-iso8601

  #60 opened 5 years ago by JustAnotherArchivist
  0

• Align digest-value grammar with base16/32/64 alphabets

  #48 opened 6 years ago by wumpus
  5

• BNF grammar for WARC-Target-URI and WARC-Profile is inconsistent with examples

  #23 opened 7 years ago by ato
  4

• Make master branch to be the default

  #58 opened 5 years ago by ibnesayeed
  1

• WARC-Conversion-Software and WARC-Conversion-Command fields

  #52 opened 6 years ago by ato
  5

• WARC-Refers-To-Target-URI / WARC-Refers-To-Target-Date header fields not allowed in conversion records

  #51 opened 6 years ago by ikreymer
  2

• WARC revision 1.1 (clarification): delete section 8 (registration of MIME media types application/warc and application/warc-fields)

  #33 opened 7 years ago by saraaubry
  2

• Proposed change to record segmentation

  #28 opened 9 years ago by justinlittman
  9

• Warc 1.1 Differences

  #44 opened 6 years ago by nicholasamorim
  1

• 'conversion' records are underspecified

  #40 opened 6 years ago by ato
  1

• WARC revision 1.1 (clarification): delete information on iipc file name prefix

  #32 opened 7 years ago by saraaubry
  1

• WARC revision 1.1 (clarification/augmentation): update examples in Annex B

  #31 opened 7 years ago by saraaubry
  2

• WARC revision 1.1 (clarification): record the base encoding of digests

  #29 opened 7 years ago by saraaubry
  6

• Clarify whether Transfer-Encoding can or should be preserved

  #22 opened 7 years ago by anjackson
  7