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

Re: Comments on Byte range draft

From: Chuck Shotton <cshotton@biap.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 1995 18:00:37 -0600
Message-Id: <v02130508accd8bc2e7d0@[198.64.246.22]>
To: Lou Montulli <montulli@mozilla.com>, Shel Kaphan <sjk@amazon.com>
Cc: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
At 3:55 PM 11/13/95, Lou Montulli wrote:
>Shel Kaphan wrote:
>> Yes, on this, at least, I agree with you.
>>
>
>I would be happy with a good header proposal, but I wouldn't
>support a new method since byterange requests could apply
>to multiple methods.  Brian's header proposal looks like a
>good start...

I'm certainly not advocating a new request method by any stretch. A simple
header that describes the "unit of measure" (e.g., byte) and the offset and
length info is more than sufficient. For that matter, simply moving the
proposed URL extensions into a header field would work. Anything in the
header has the added benefit of being non-trivial for browser users to
monkey with. I can think of lots of nasty scenarios where users misuse byte
range additions on URLs.

--_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
Chuck Shotton                               StarNine Technologies, Inc.
chuck@starnine.com                             http://www.starnine.com/
cshotton@biap.com                                  http://www.biap.com/
                 "Shut up and eat your vegetables!"
Received on Monday, 13 November 1995 16:09:00 EST

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