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

Re: Comments on Byte range draft

From: Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com>
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 1995 19:01:30 PST
To: montulli@mozilla.com
Cc: fielding@avron.ICS.UCI.EDU, ari@netscape.com, john@math.nwu.edu, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Message-Id: <95Nov11.190131pst.2733@golden.parc.xerox.com>
> You and Larry are looking at this problem with blinders on.
> There are many more uses for byterange URL's than simply
> PDF files.  For instance Netscape 2.0 uses byteranges to
> request parts of files that it didn't get the last time
> you came to a page.  You can therefore interrupt a page
> during download at any time and continue it exactly
> where you left off when you come back to the page.  This
> makes cachine up to 50% more effective at saving bandwidth.

Yes, byte ranges are GREAT! They're wonderful. We should definitely
have byte ranges in HTTP! It's a wonderful addition. Honest!

They just don't belong at the end of arbitrary URLs. Maybe you want to
define a new URL scheme that calls out a new extension to the HTTP
protocol?
Received on Saturday, 11 November 1995 19:06:37 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 24 September 2003 06:31:35 EDT