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

Re: Byteranges with 206 partial content

From: John Franks <john@math.nwu.edu>
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 1995 19:39:45 -0600 (CST)
Message-Id: <199511140139.TAA19933@hopf.math.nwu.edu>
To: Ari Luotonen <luotonen@netscape.com>
Cc: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
According to Ari Luotonen:
> 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.

I would agree with this.

> 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?

"Unless-modified-since"  (send the byte range)

John Franks
Received on Monday, 13 November 1995 17:50:54 UTC

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