- From: Ari Luotonen <luotonen@netscape.com>
- Date: Mon, 13 Nov 1995 16:51:34 -0800 (PST)
- To: http-wg mailing list <http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Based on the discussion during the past hours, it appears that a better way to do byte ranges is indeed via an additional header, and with a 206 partial content response code. Doing it via a header will still make it work through existing proxies, and 206 status code will prevent them from caching it, unless they understand what's going on. Roy, could you allocate 206 (or whatever) for Partial Content in HTTP, please? An additional feature is to say "give me a range if the document hasn't changed, but if it has, send me the entire document". Similar to If-modified-since, but still quite different... What would you call such a header? I will re-vamp a new version of the byterange draft reflecting these changes, and will submit it for review in http-wg shortly. Cheers, -- Ari Luotonen ari@netscape.com Netscape Communications Corp. http://home.netscape.com/people/ari/ 501 East Middlefield Road Mountain View, CA 94043, USA Netscape Server Development Team
Received on Monday, 13 November 1995 16:57:09 UTC