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

Re: new editorial issue RANGE_WITH_CONTENTCODING

From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@kiwi.ics.uci.edu>
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 13:18:27 -0800
To: Jim Gettys <jg@pa.dec.com>
Cc: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Message-Id: <9711141330.aa19569@paris.ics.uci.edu>
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/4665
I have said before that the reason there is both a Content-Encoding
and a Transfer-Encoding is that the former is a property of the
resource and the latter is a transmission issue.  The reason I say
this is because the other metadata describing the entity always
describes the entity-body as whole, e.g.,

   Content-Encoding( Content-Type( data ) )

so that things like Content-MD5 and Range requests apply to the whole.

>Then should then 100 bytes covered by the Range/Content-Range
>refer to the second hundred bytes of the HTML file before
>compression, or to the second hundred bytes of the compressed

The compressed form.

>It seems to me that the only reasonable interpretation is that
>Range/Content-Range should apply to the unencoded form of the
>response, since the client's ultimate goal is to obtain a specific
>piece of the unencoded form; the use of compression is only
>a temporary phase that the response goes through while it is
>being transmitted.

This would assume the part of the server performing the range
has access to the non-compressed data, which is false.

Received on Friday, 14 November 1997 13:38:23 UTC

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