Re: Byte ranges -- formal spec proposal

>is required also to be honored.  It is quite acceptable to return an
>"access denied" status for the second URL.  Parameters like byterange
>while very useful in some applications are useless, meaningless, hard
>to serve, or even impossible to serve in other cases.  We can all come
>up with our favorite example.  When a byterange is requested in such
>an instance the server should simply refuse the request with an
>appropriate status code.  If a server does not support byteranges
>(e.g. most current servers) and receives a request for one it will
>presumably send a "file does not exist" status code.  This is fine.
 
I would much prefer to have a method, whereby I can send a
"Method not allowed" or "Not implemented" error. Also, by having a
method rather than a URL extension, we don't pollute URL namespace
with kibble from supporting "some" applications.