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

Re: Comments on Byte range draft

From: Paul Hoffman <ietf-lists@proper.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 1995 09:46:25 -0800
Message-Id: <v02140403accd30f1571d@[165.227.40.34]>
To: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
>Could we discuss the benefits/drawbacks of this algorithm?

Oh, Brian, there you go again actually creating solutions instead of
arguing about philosophy and who understands the problem better. :-)

I'm no proxy maven, but this solution appears workable for both servers and
end clients. Given that a client that wants to get more of an aborted
download can just as easily create a "Request-Range: bytes=" as it can a
URL as proposed, I believe that the optional HTTP header from the client is
the preferable solution than the overly-extended URL.

Basically, users mess up URLs all the time, but I feel safe in letting
client software handle headers. If both schemes give the same result,
headers will be more reliable and less prone to user error.

--Paul Hoffman
--Proper Publishing
Received on Monday, 13 November 1995 09:50:30 EST

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