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

Re: Comments on Byte range draft

From: John Franks <john@math.nwu.edu>
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 1995 15:50:33 -0600 (CST)
Message-Id: <199511122150.PAA10229@hopf.math.nwu.edu>
To: Chuck Shotton <cshotton@biap.com>
Cc: snowhare@netimages.com, gtn@ebt.com, montulli@mozilla.com, fielding@avron.ICS.UCI.EDU, masinter@parc.xerox.com, ari@netscape.com, john@math.nwu.edu, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
According to Chuck Shotton:
>  LIFE IS NOT A BYTE STREAM. 

This is true.  But that is a very different statement than saying
"Nothing is a byte stream,"  which seems to be what you are arguing.
Servers can offer byte ranges on those files that they choose.
It is perfectly fine for this to be the empty set.  Presumably no
server will offer byte ranges on CGI output.

Saying that byte ranges won't work well on parsed documents is
probably true.  But that is not an argument that byte ranges should
never be allowed.  I suspect that image and sound files are never
parsed, for example.

Parsed files really are a red herring in this discussion.

John Franks
Received on Sunday, 12 November 1995 13:58:28 EST

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