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

Re: Comments on Byte range draft

From: Balint Nagy Endre <bne@bne.ind.eunet.hu>
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 1995 10:35:21 +0100 (MET)
To: Alexei Kosut <akosut@nueva.pvt.k12.ca.us>
Cc: http WG <http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Message-Id: <342.bne@bne.ind.eunet.hu>
Alexei Kosut writes:
> 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).
Agree. We need a new status code for the Partial content. If 205 is in use
for other reason, we can assign a different one.
Who knows, what happened with Reset document?

Andrew. (Endre Balint Nagy) <bne@bne.ind.eunet.hu>
Received on Sunday, 12 November 1995 01:53:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:40:15 UTC