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

Re: Comments on Byte range draft

From: Alexei Kosut <akosut@nueva.pvt.k12.ca.us>
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 1995 00:08:42 -0800 (PST)
To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@avron.ICS.UCI.EDU>
Cc: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Message-Id: <Pine.HPP.3.91.951112000204.21887A-100000@ace.nueva.pvt.k12.ca.us>
On Sat, 11 Nov 1995, Roy T. Fielding wrote:

> > Request-Range: bytes=500-999
> 
> Because it screws up caching by hierarchical proxies.

Oh. Very good point. I hadn't thought of that.

> Asking for a partial GET changes the meaning of the header fields returned
> in the response, which in turn requires that we either use a different
> method or a different status code.   Hmmmmm... what would be the effect
> of adding "205 Partial Content"?

Well, it would mean 205 couldn't be used for Reset Document, as was 
discussed a couple months ago on this list, and that most agreed was a 
good idea (it would reset the document to how the browser originally 
received it, clearing forms and so forth, sort of like 204 No Content). 
Except for that, a Partial Content response seems good. Satisfies my 
thought, which was that a non-byte range server should just return the 
full document (with status 200).

--/ Alexei Kosut <akosut@nueva.pvt.k12.ca.us> /--------/ Lefler on IRC
----------------------------/ <http://www.nueva.pvt.k12.ca.us/~akosut/>
The viewpoints expressed above are entirely false, and in no way
represent Alexei Kosut nor any other person or entity. /--------------
Received on Sunday, 12 November 1995 00:16:07 EST

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