- From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@avron.ICS.UCI.EDU>
- Date: Sun, 12 Nov 1995 01:47:52 -0800
- To: Alexei Kosut <akosut@nueva.pvt.k12.ca.us>
- Cc: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
>> 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).
Uh, right, I guess I forgot to write that down -- weird. I do remember
the discussion, though, and will include it in the draft.
> 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).
I guess we'll make it "206 Partial Content" then.
...Roy T. Fielding
Department of Information & Computer Science (fielding@ics.uci.edu)
University of California, Irvine, CA 92717-3425 fax:+1(714)824-4056
http://www.ics.uci.edu/~fielding/
Received on Sunday, 12 November 1995 01:53:43 UTC