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@[]>, 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

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


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?

Received on Thursday, 18 May 1995 14:49:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:40:14 UTC