W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > July to September 2007

RE: Custom Ranges

From: Yaron Goland <yarong@microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 14:30:58 -0700
To: Kornel Lesinski <kornel@geekhood.net>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <AE9A8CBCE1A9744D975A9FBBF822DD785FC3D06C5C@NA-EXMSG-C102.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
I ran into this exact same problem. In the end we choose another approach but the lack of a definition in RFC 2616 on how to extend ranges was a problem. Another big problem is that certain servers (who shall remain nameless) seem to believe that the range values must be integers. I don't see anything in RFC 2616 that seems to require that. But RFC 2616 does seem ambiguous on the subject. This would seem like a good issue for the HTTPBis issue list.



> -----Original Message-----
> From: ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org]
> On Behalf Of Kornel Lesinski
> Sent: Friday, August 24, 2007 4:15 PM
> To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
> Subject: Custom Ranges
> I'm writing application that would benefit greatly from being able to
> use
> Range requests with custom units and range definitions instead of
> bytes.
> The RFC 2616 seems to suggest such possibility in 3.12 Range Units:
> there's a "other-range-unit" defined.
> However definition of Content-Range uses "ranges-specifier" and Range
> uses
> "content-range-spec", which both seem to allow only byte ranges.
> In such case, is there any use for "other-range-unit" in Accept-Ranges?
> If I wish to use custom ranges, should I stay clear of Range/Content-
> Range
> and status 206? What is the best alternative? (custom headers + Vary?
> Piggybacking my range spec on E-Tags?)
> --
> regards, Kornel Lesinski

Received on Wednesday, 29 August 2007 21:31:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:10:43 UTC