Jeff writes: > I think you are referring to a case like this: /foo.gif is 1024 bytes > long, and a client sends > GET /foo.gif HTTP/1.1 > Range: bytes = 0-2047 > The spec now implies that the returned response would have > Content-Range: bytes 0-1023/1024 > Is this consistent with your reading? > That is consistent with my reading, but it isn't really the case I was worried about. Consider the case where a client sends GET /foo.gif HTTP/1.1 Range: bytes = 1500-2047 and foo.gif is only 1800 bytes long. My reading is that right now the returned response would have a Content-Range: bytes 1500-1799/1800 And the client would end up with the last 300 bytes, just as if a Range bytes = 1500- had been sent. It seems that we agree that isn't what we want, and that if the byte range specified is out of bounds, the robustness prinicipal implies returning the *whole* entity. In the case you describe, I can see how what is written gets the client the whole entity, but I'm not sure that it does imply that it in all cases. In other words, I think there is an ambiguity here that we need to plug. This makes me wonder whether there isn't another ambiguity here. I had assumed from this section: If the last-byte-pos value is present, it must be greater than or equal to the first-byte-pos in that byte-range-spec, or the byte-range-spec is invalid. The recipient of an invalid byte-range-spec must ignore it. That the recipient of an invalid byte-range-spec ignored it by treating the request as if it did not contain a Range: header (once again, returning the whole entity on a GET request). Am I misreading that? Regards, Ted HardieReceived on Thursday, 25 April 1996 15:51:06 EDT
This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 24 September 2003 06:31:51 EDT