I note that there has been a justification added for declaring that a last-byte-pos in byte range after the end of the entity should be read as naming the end of the entity, but I don't think the justification fully answers the objections raised in: http://www-uk.hpl.hp.com/people/ange/archives/http-wg-archive/1012.html and re-iterated in http://www-uk.hpl.hp.com/people/ange/archives/http-wg-archive/11196.html My objections are not strong enough to want to raise a big fuss over this--I think the current design risks semantic transparency in a small number of cases to reduce round trips in an equally small number of cases--but I would be interested in hearing any further arguments which the editorial group might have heard in favor of this language. regards, Ted HardieReceived on Friday, 31 May 1996 11:24:51 EDT
This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 24 September 2003 06:32:00 EDT