W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg-old@w3.org > May to August 1995

Re: Byte ranges -- formal spec proposal

From: Daniel W. Connolly <connolly@beach.w3.org>
Date: Thu, 18 May 1995 17:44:44 -0400
Message-Id: <199505182144.RAA00793@beach.w3.org>
To: Chuck Shotton <cshotton@biap.com>
Cc: Ari Luotonen <luotonen@netscape.com>, brian@organic.com, dwm@shell.portal.com, john@math.nwu.edu, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
In message <v0211011eabe16b310d8c@[129.106.201.2]>, Chuck Shotton writes:
>
>So, how do you deal with multi-fork files, byte ranges from generated
>output streams, ranges that are interpreted as records in a database or any
>other number of problems?

You don't. Or at least: you don't have to.

The proposal, as I see it, is: _If_ you're going to serve up ranges of
bytes, please write youre URLs this way: ... . If you're not going to
serve up byte ranges, then you don't need to bother with this
proposal. Your clients/servers/proxies will continue to operate
reliably.

There's one more optimization: if you're a proxy, and you've looking
at a byte range request xxx;byterange=S-E and you've got up-to-date
cached responses with URLs of the form xxx;byterange=Si-Ei and the
intervals [Si, Ei] cover the interval [S,E], you can compute the
response to the current request from your cached requests.

This optimization is only correct if nobody uses URLs of the form

	xxx;byterange=X-Y

except for this purpose. And that's the only reason they needed to
tell the rest of us about this at all. Otherwise, it could have been
a completely server-private feature.

Is that in line with what you meant, Ari?

Dan
Received on Thursday, 18 May 1995 14:49:13 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 24 September 2003 06:31:21 EDT