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: Wed, 3 Sep 2008 00:22:56 +0100
To: Kris Zyp <kris@sitepen.com>
Cc: Henrik Nordstrom <henrik@henriknordstrom.net>, ietf-http-wg <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20080902232256.GA21140@shareable.org>

Kris Zyp wrote:
> 
> >tis 2008-09-02 klockan 08:37 -0600 skrev Kris Zyp:
> >
> >>I didn't know there was such rules for alternate range units.
> >
> >There isn't any struct rules for range units, but this property is
> >highly desireable for different implementations to interoperate properly
> >when it comes to merging and splitting.
> 
> After thinking about this, I actually have no problem with this rule being 
> enforced, I think that is a good suggestion. I had been thinking it would 
> be more desirable that the individual "ranged" response representations all 
> be valid complete JSON messages themselves, but I don't think that is 
> necessary. I am perfectly fine with have ranges all being concatenable 
> without any JSON parsing.
> 
> GET /jsonResource
> Range: items=0-1
> 
> response:
> ["a","b",
> 
> GET /jsonResource
> Range: items=2-
> 
> response:
> "c","d"]
> 
> GET /jsonResource
> 
> response:
> ["a","b","c","d"]
> 
> A puts little extra overhead on the client doing JSON parsing to properly 
> pre/postpend the string to parse it, but this is a negligible cost...

What about

Range: items=2-4
Range: items=2-5

Is the JSON parser expected to look at the text it receives to decide
whether to append "]"?

If so, why bother sending the "[" and "]" at all?

-- Jamie
Received on Tuesday, 2 September 2008 23:23:35 GMT

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