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 15:38:10 +0100
To: Kris Zyp <kris@sitepen.com>
Cc: Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <20080901143810.GD15198@shareable.org>

Kris Zyp wrote:
> >Range "items" doesn't explain what the meaning is either.  It just
> >gives a really vague idea.  What kind of items?
> 
> At least in the context of JSON, items can be reasonably clear. I would 
> think other structured data formats may also have entity that could be 
> well-defined.

Slight unclarity, sorry.  By application-specific, I meant specific to
"a particular structured form of JSON".

> >"Dojo-Range: 6 items" seems clearer.
> 
> This is kind of the antithesis of what we were aiming for. We wanted 
> something interoperable with other technologies, not Dojo-specific.

Fair enough.  JSON-as-Dojo-uses-Range? :-)

> >Are caches allowed (in principle) to split/merge these ranges, if they
> >knew how?  Would such caches operate on the item syntax -
> >i.e. structured JSON in the message body?
> 
> Yes and yes, I thought that was the idea of Ranges.

Sounds good.

Right now, cache range operations are independent of content type.

For the proposal, the name "items" seems too generic for something
which only works with JSON (perhaps even only JSON structured in a
particular way?).

Unless it's understood that cache range operations on "items" must
take into account other headers such as Content-Type.  I think that
would be reasonable.

(Btw, one can easily imagine ranges "characters", "xpath", "xquery",
"grep"... even "session".  I'm not sure if that's a desirable road to
go down.  Maybe it would be very useful.)

-- Jamie
Received on Monday, 1 September 2008 14:38:49 GMT

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