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

Re: Issue 133, was: multipart/byteranges minimum number of parts

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2008 17:03:44 +0200
Message-ID: <48EE1D50.8080409@gmx.de>
To: Henrik Nordstrom <henrik@henriknordstrom.net>
CC: "A. Rothman" <amichai2@amichais.bounceme.net>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org

Henrik Nordstrom wrote:
> Obviously 2 is the correct answer.
> 
> 
> responding with multipart/byteranges is only OK if the client issued a
> request with multiple ranges, as this is how the client indicates it
> supports multipart/byteranges.
> 
> It's entirely fine to respond with a single range within that
> multipart/byteranges response if the ranges adds up to a single range or
> if the server otherwise chooses to respond with a single range.
> 
> The MUST NOT is to respond with multipart/byteranges if the request was
> for only one range as there is no way to know if the client supports
> multipart/byteranges in response to such requests.
> 
> As soon as the request is multi-ranged the server is free to choose
> multipart/byteranges if it likes as it then knows the client supports
> this, even if not strictly needed for the specific response.
> 
> Responding with multipart/byteranges when there is only a single range
> in the response is sub-optimal, but does not make it an invalid response
> to a multi-range request.
> 
> Regards
> Henrik

Ok, proposed change in 
<http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/attachment/ticket/133/133.diff>...

BR, Julian
Received on Thursday, 9 October 2008 15:04:28 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:50:56 GMT