View: Browse HTML     Browse Raw Text
From: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <>
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 1997 10:13:45 -0500
To: (Jim Gettys)
Subject: Re: byte ranges discussion...

At 08:08 AM 3/13/97 -0800, you wrote: >I have filed a large amount of byte range discussions (private) that >went between you, me, jeff, and larry. But none went to the general >HTTP mailing list. That is correct. There are in fact two issues - both are on your latest list. If you don't think that we are all set then please let me know. >If there is still an issue, please drop me a note ASAP, and please get >a summary posted to the working group on the topic in the next few days. >I need to know if you still think there is an issue here, as I'm finishing >work on the issues list, and we need to open discussion on the mailing >list if there is... Just as a summary: Issue 1 ------- It still is - there are two ways of going around this: A) Using separate status codes for the two cases: 1) Byte range request with an If-Range cache validation 2) Byte range request without any cache validation (first time) B) Add semantics to the existing 206 code I guess this is up to the working group to decide. Issue 2 ------- There is also the problem that the current definition of the "Content-Range" header doesn't allow unknown byte ranges. This makes it impossible to use byte ranges in situations where you rely on chunked encoding. Henrik -- Henrik Frystyk Nielsen, <> World Wide Web Consortium, MIT/LCS NE43-346 545 Technology Square, Cambridge MA 02139, USA