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

Re: Comments on Byte range draft

From: Gavin Nicol <gtn@ebt.com>
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 1995 20:25:11 -0500
Message-Id: <199511130125.UAA00143@ebt-inc.ebt.com>
To: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
>> Byte ranges are a lazy replacement for a general naming mechanism.
>You still have those blinders on. The whole universe of documents is
>not SGML/HTML/PDF/(favorite text markup language with naming mechanism).
>The ability to restart an interrupted transfer is an item that naming
>mechanisms are insufficiently powerful to handle in the general case.
>Byte ranges are not a 'lazy replacement' - they are the only general
>mechanism for restarting interrupted transfers of documents containing
>arbitrary content.

Well, let's agree to disagree on the "only way". I am not saying that
byte ranges should not be implemented, but that a general
naming/addressing scheme is needed, and byte range addressing should
be possible as part of it. 
Received on Sunday, 12 November 1995 17:25:33 UTC

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