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

Re: issue 85 - range unit extensions

From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2008 18:25:51 -0700
Message-Id: <B27A791B-55C4-4131-A21D-19C8B0309D37@gbiv.com>
Cc: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
To: Kris Zyp <kris@sitepen.com>

On Sep 1, 2008, at 8:51 AM, Kris Zyp wrote:
> I certainly don't mind using a different name, if the HTTP working  
> feels that's more appropriate. I just figured "items" might be  
> applicable in multiple content types (applicable to content types  
> that support a top-level array-like construct), but I understand  
> that if it is felt to be too generic to have a real clear purpose  
> in every situation. Maybe "array-items"?

Range "items" is fine.  It is not specific to the media type.  Each  
resource
can have its own notion of what it means to be an item boundary --  
all that
matters is that they be sequentially numbered from a standard start  
value
(0 or 1) and that the items combined in order are consistent with  
what would
have been received in a 200 response to GET.

> "date" ranges is the one other unit that I have felt would be  
> useful, but "items" is certainly the most valuable alternate IMO.

Date ranges are much harder to get right because the boundary is not  
clear.
The typical use for such a range is to retrieve whatever has been  
appended
to the resource state since a given time, but time units are not unique
and thus require some overlap in requests and removal of duplicates.

A Range unit of Since="strong-etag" would be interesting as well.

....Roy
Received on Tuesday, 2 September 2008 01:26:32 GMT

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