W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg-old@w3.org > September to December 1997

Re: Question on byte ranges

From: Dave Kristol <dmk@bell-labs.com>
Date: Wed, 05 Nov 1997 09:40:14 -0500
Message-Id: <3460854E.586EAEC@bell-labs.com>
To: Jeffrey Mogul <mogul@pa.dec.com>
Cc: http working group <http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/4632
Jeffrey Mogul wrote:
> [...]
> So, based as before on the Robustness Principle, and especially given
> the general lack of definitive statements about this kind of problem
> in the HTTP/1.1 spec, that we're better off with servers ignoring
> malformed non-mandatory headers, rather than sending status-400
> responses.
> [...]

That gets to my point, which John Franks didn't quite get right.

My remark was, Why send a 416 in response to a well-formed header (whose
byte-range-spec is unsatisfiable), but respond with 200 to a malformed
header?  Why the distinction, in other words?  The Robustness Principle
would argue against the 416 response, too, wouldn't it?  Surely the
Content-Length or equivalent would be enough to clue the recipient that
the byte-range-spec was unsatisfiable.

Dave Kristol
Received on Wednesday, 5 November 1997 06:46:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:40:21 UTC