Re: must a partial response range be exact?

Thanks for pointing that out!

However, if that is so, then given that "A response to a request for 
multiple ranges, whose result is a single range, MAY be sent as a 
multipart/byteranges media type with one part", the spec MAY have this 
SHOULD clause bite itself as well (in exactly the same sense as 
returning a single Content-Range response)...

Is this another minor self-contradiction?

Actually, I understood this SHOULD clause as referring to the 
possibility of returning several ranges out of order (which it 
discourages), rather than to combining ranges into a single range (but 
retaining the overall order).

What do u think?

Thanks,

Amichai


Henrik Nordstrom wrote:
> On tor, 2008-10-02 at 10:44 +0000, A. Rothman wrote:
>
>   
>> Specifically, I will currently only support the simpler Content-Range
>> responses (no multiparts), for both single-range and multiple-range
>> requests, and just wanted to make sure that doing so is legal - I
>> agree that it makes sense that it should be legal, but making sense is
>> often not good enough ;-)
>>     
>
> There is at least one SHOULD that will bite you
>
>    When a client requests multiple byte-ranges in one request, the
>    server SHOULD return them in the order that they appeared in the
>    request.
>
> Regards
> Henrik
>