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

Byteranges with 206 partial content

From: Ari Luotonen <luotonen@netscape.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 1995 16:51:34 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <199511140051.QAA09494@netscape.com>
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,

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.

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

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