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

Re: Comments on Byte range draft

From: Lou Montulli <montulli@mozilla.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 1995 16:11:38 -0800
Message-Id: <30A7DEBA.500F@mozilla.com>
To: Simon Spero <ses@tipper.oit.unc.edu>
Cc: Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com>, ietf-lists@proper.com, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Simon Spero wrote:
> Just a few points:
> If the byte range is carried in the URL, and is generated by the client,
> then the client needs to know whether or not the server suports byte
> ranges before generating the request- otherwise the request will be
> rejected. If the information is stored in a header, then servers that
> don't understand the header will just send the entire object.
> I'd go for the later approach. Add nocache to make sure that proxies
> which don't understand byte-ranges don't cache it, and add another pragma
> to reenable caching for proxies which do understand byte-ranges.
> Request-
> X-Byte-Range: [start]-[finish]
> Response-
> Pragma: no-cache, cache-if-you-understand-byte-range
> X-Byte-Range: [start]-[finish]

We don't need a hack here.  Using a 205 response to signify a 
partial document is being returned seems far better than 
the "no-cache" nonsense.  The 205 response is also necessary
for the client to tell the difference between a full document 
and a partial document response.

Lou Montulli                 http://www.netscape.com/people/montulli/
       Netscape Communications Corp.
Received on Monday, 13 November 1995 16:35:31 UTC

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