W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg-old@w3.org > May to August 1998

Byte ranges

From: John Franks <john@math.nwu.edu>
Date: Mon, 1 Jun 1998 19:13:55 -0500 (CDT)
To: http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com
Cc: Alex Rousskov <rousskov@nlanr.net>
Message-Id: <Pine.LNX.3.96.980601190949.1204A-100000@hopf.math.nwu.edu>
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/153

I recently received the message below.  Looking at
draft-ietf-http-v11-spec-rev-03 it seems the description
of multipart/byteranges leaves a lot to be desired on the
subject of where <CRLF> should occur.  Is there a definitive
answer to this?

John Franks

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Mon, 1 Jun 1998 16:04:33 -0600 (MDT)
From: Alex Rousskov <rousskov@nlanr.net>
To: John Franks <john@dehn.math.nwu.edu>
Subject: Re: Server: WN/2.0.0pre

Hi John,

	In implementing multipart range responses you probably followed RFC
2046 (prepending boundaries with <CRLF>). However, HTTP RFC (2068) gives an
example where boundaries are _not_ prepended with <CRLF> (note that there is
only one empty line after headers):

   HTTP/1.1 206 Partial content
   Date: Wed, 15 Nov 1995 06:25:24 GMT
   Last-modified: Wed, 15 Nov 1995 04:58:08 GMT
   Content-type: multipart/byteranges; boundary=THIS_STRING_SEPARATES

   Content-type: application/pdf
   Content-range: bytes 500-999/8000

   ...the first range...
   Content-type: application/pdf
   Content-range: bytes 7000-7999/8000

   ...the second range

How did you decide which RFC to follow? Any "well-known" clarifications that
I am not aware about? 


Received on Monday, 1 June 1998 17:19:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:40:22 UTC