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

Re: Byte ranges -- formal spec proposal

From: Ari Luotonen <luotonen@netscape.com>
Date: Thu, 18 May 1995 13:53:43 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <199505182053.NAA05361@neon.netscape.com>
To: Chuck Shotton <cshotton@biap.com>
Cc: brian@organic.com, dwm@shell.portal.com, john@math.nwu.edu, luotonen@netscape.com, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com

> >Well, we do have to settle on a standard though, since we're going to
> >rely proxy servers to reassemble full documents from byte ranges.  At
> >least that was my interpretation of Ari's proposal - the proxy needs to
> >know if "1-end" means the complete document or not.
> 
> Says who? Who said anything about proxies trying to be cute in the middle
> of byte range requests?

Says me.  The second paragraph of the proposal indicates that making
proxies aware of this is one of the primary reasons why this standard
should exist.

We're talking about potentially HUGE documents, which is the very
reason why byteranges make sense with them.  So caching them, and
possibly reconstructing them from pieces, is a big win, and not doing
that would be really silly.

The spec is written so as to make this work through existing proxies
without support for it, to intentionally break with servers that don't
have support for it, and to make it work in clients without adding
more interaction and complexity between HTML and HTTP.  I'll go thru
the whole thread this afternoon, and will send a summary of changes
later today for review.

Cheers,
--
Ari Luotonen				ari@netscape.com
Netscape Communications Corp.		http://home.netscape.com/people/ari/
501 East Middlefield Road
Mountain View, CA 94043, USA		Netscape Server Development Team
Received on Thursday, 18 May 1995 14:58:32 EDT

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