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

Re: Custom Ranges

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 16:43:19 +1000
Message-Id: <70C86C10-D966-43A9-84B8-04C0D6DFDE72@mnot.net>
Cc: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
To: Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>

Now i85.

<http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/#i85>


On 01/09/2007, at 1:40 AM, Larry Masinter wrote:

>
> What I remember was that I pushed for custom ranges and that there was
> a lot of push-back from people who thought it was too much complexity.
>
> I think the idea 'sort of' got into the spec, but not fully fleshed  
> out.
>
> I agree that it belongs in the issue list, to either clarify how to
> use custom ranges (with a range unit registry, for example) or else
> to remove the feature.
>
> Larry
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:ietf-http-wg- 
> request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Yaron Goland
> Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2007 2:31 PM
> To: Kornel Lesinski; ietf-http-wg@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Custom Ranges
>
> 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.
>
>         Thanks,
>
>                 Yaron
>
>> -----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
>
>
>


--
Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Friday, 12 October 2007 06:45:24 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:50:22 GMT