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

Re: Byteranges with 206 partial content

From: Paul Hoffman <ietf-lists@proper.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 1995 17:44:52 -0800
Message-Id: <v02140415accda24cfbff@[165.227.40.34]>
To: Ari Luotonen <luotonen@netscape.com>
Cc: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
At 4:51 PM 11/13/95, Ari Luotonen wrote:
>Based on the discussion during the past hours,

Discussion? Usually people have to listen to each other and value each
other's opinions for a discussion. Or have I just brought up another red
herring? :-)  Glad to see that some movement was made.

>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?

Two things here:

- I question the value of a "Byterange-even-if-changed" header or action.
It seems too dangerous and unlikely to be used by anyone if there is a
safer alternative (which there will certainly be).

- It seems to me that we need two headers to work: "Byterange" coupled with
"Unless-modified-since". There may be a more elegant solution using
"If-modified-since", but I'd hate to make that header try to act like both
"if" and "unless" just to prevent creating one more header. Let's remember
that these headers will only be seen by <.1% of users, and clarity of
wording will help server, client, and proxy implementors.

--Paul Hoffman
--Proper Publishing
Received on Monday, 13 November 1995 17:55:41 EST

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