View: Browse HTML     Browse Raw Text
From: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <frystyk@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 1997 10:13:45 -0500
To: jg@pa.dec.com (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, <frystyk@w3.org>
World Wide Web Consortium, MIT/LCS NE43-346
545 Technology Square, Cambridge MA 02139, USA