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

Re: issue 85 - range unit extensions

From: Kris Zyp <kris@sitepen.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2008 08:22:45 -0600
Message-ID: <0a7c01c90c3e$3491dd10$4200a8c0@kris>
To: "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
To: "Kris Zyp" <kris@sitepen.com>
Cc: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Sent: Monday, September 01, 2008 2:22 AM
Subject: Re: issue 85 - range unit extensions


> Kris Zyp wrote:
>>> Out of curiosity: did you consider simply using a query parameter 
>>> instead? If you did, and decided not to, that would be interesting for 
>>> the question whether custom ranges are a good idea after all.
>>
>> Yes, I considered that, but here is no standard for query parameters, 
>> AFAIK. Since Dojo is a client side library, we are aiming for maximum
>
> Nope.
>
>> 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?

True, but it seems much more in line with specifications, and requires much 
less "invention" than query parameters (specifying start, count, as well 
response mechanisms for returned count, index, and total count).

> To make this robust, we'd really need a registry.

That's fine, sounds good to me.
Kris 
Received on Monday, 1 September 2008 14:24:07 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:50:54 GMT