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

Re: New byteranges

From: Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 1995 22:53:46 PST
To: luotonen@netscape.com
Cc: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Message-Id: <95Nov16.225401pst.2733@golden.parc.xerox.com>
I've never been able to figure out how the client knows what byte
range to ask for in a PDF document. This is just a mystery part of the
proposal. (Is it some trade secret? My PDF book doesn't say anything
about byte ranges that I can find.)

Should the response to a 'range:' request still include a
content-type: header? It better be the same as the content-type of the
previous range request, no? In fact, maybe instead of a new 'range:'
response header, you should just say

 content-type: application/range-response; range="chapters 6-9/12"

or something, since the content of the actual body of the message
isn't the type of the whole.


>   the fragments in sync. Conditional GET (the GET request with the If-
>   modified-since header) works as expected with byte ranges.

I think we've established that 'as expected' varies wildly from one
person to another. Could you please explain in this document exactly
how YOU expect conditional GET to work with byte ranges?
Received on Thursday, 16 November 1995 22:59:25 EST

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