W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > July to September 2008

Re: issue 85 - range unit extensions

From: Jamie Lokier <jamie@shareable.org>
Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2008 10:25:35 +0100
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: Kris Zyp <kris@sitepen.com>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <20080901092535.GA12831@shareable.org>

Julian Reschke wrote:
> >interoperability with servers by following the HTTP specification as 
> >closely as possible, so servers have a real standard to go off of 
> >instead something we made up. It seems like leveraging the range/partial 
> >content mechanism with alternate range unit is the approach that HTTP 
> >would suggest, and I have no reason to believe it is wrong. Retrieving a 
> >paged subset of data is merely a different representation of the same 
> >resource.
> Yes. But, making up new range units shares has similar problems as 
> making up query parameters, doesn't it?
> To make this robust, we'd really need a registry.

Yes, a registry or a convention for range-unit namespaces, like
"com.dojo.items", or even "items{uuid=UUID}".

Or simply declare that "items" is application-specific.  Only use it
with known resources, and caches should not do anything clever with

Or use a different header: Dojo-Range, with the response containing
"Vary: Dojo-Range".  That would make it cachable by generic HTTP
caches, which sounds rather desirable.

-- Jamie
Received on Monday, 1 September 2008 09:26:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:10:47 UTC