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

Re: new editorial issue RANGE_WITH_CONTENTCODING

From: David W. Morris <dwm@xpasc.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 13:15:52 -0800 (PST)
To: Jim Gettys <jg@pa.dec.com>
Cc: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Message-Id: <Pine.GSO.3.96.971114130952.23344K-100000@shell1.aimnet.com>
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/4664

Without advocating a particular position, I would like to note that
one of the 'justifications' for byte ranges was the ability to
continue retrieving a previously interrupted response. In that mode,
if I were the developer of the client, I would want the byte range
to apply to the compressed form.

In the usage associated with partial retrieval of structured data such as
a PDF file, I'd want the byte ranges to apply to the uncompressed 

It would be helpful to know what actual use is being made of byte ranges.

Dave Morris
Received on Friday, 14 November 1997 13:20:40 UTC

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