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

Re: Comments on Byte range draft

From: Gavin Nicol <gtn@ebt.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 1995 20:39:02 -0500
Message-Id: <199511140139.UAA13806@ebt-inc.ebt.com>
To: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
>> incomplete. This is great for small pages, but if you try fetching
>> small peices of a 5MB document, it makes no sense.
> 
>What makes you think it makes no sense. 

Give a 5MB HTML document to Netscape Navigator. For certain media
types, and HTML is one, you can request peices (not byte ranges), and
do not need to reparse the data. For example, it makes more sense to
ask for single elements from HTML, than a byte range.

>> Byte ranges are a lazy replacement for a general naming mechanism.
> 
>What's your naming scheme for JPEG files?  How about AVI
>video streams?  Bytes are already a general purpose naming scheme,
>and they have been used for a number of years.  There is no
>need to invent another one.

Byte ranges are not sufficient for many data types, and indeed, are
potentially harmful. A general naming mechanism would allow byte range
naming, as well as things like asking for elements m to n in an HTML
document. 
Received on Monday, 13 November 1995 17:40:56 EST

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