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

Re: Comments on Byte range draft

From: Benjamin Franz <snowhare@netimages.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 1995 19:37:34 -0800 (PST)
To: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Message-Id: <Pine.LNX.3.91.951113192522.3454B-100000@ns.viet.net>
On Mon, 13 Nov 1995, Gavin Nicol wrote:

> >Benjamin Franz wrote:
> >
> >What are you talking about? One more time: BYTE RANGES
> >SHOULD REFER TO POSITIONING WITHIN THE BYTE STREAM BETWEEN THE SERVER
> >AND THE CLIENT NOT WITHIN THE SERVER'S OR CLIENT'S LOCAL REPRESENTATION OF
> >THAT STREAM. I have no idea how to make the statement any simpler. This
> >is not about *what* the data is - it is about *how* the data is transported.
> 
> If byte ranges do not address an object on the server, or a part thereof
> (and part needs to be defined in that case), then they do not belong
> in the URL space.
> 
> I have nothing against byte ranges, or partial transfers in general,
> but limiting oneself to byte ranges, and adding the syntax to the URL
> space, is not the way to do it.

I have no problem with that. My initial leaning towards putting it in the 
URL for the sake of not breaking proxies was more than adequately handled by 
the header proposal. I have a deep suspicion that this is a case of 
violent agreement. I was concerned about partial caching (something I 
think is *badly* needed) while you were concerned about the byte range 
being part of the URL (something you are massively opposed to). We were 
simply not talking about the same thing.

;-)

-- 
Benjamin Franz
Received on Monday, 13 November 1995 19:29:45 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 24 September 2003 06:31:36 EDT