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

Re: must a partial response range be exact?

From: A. Rothman <amichai2@amichais.net>
Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2008 19:59:19 +0000
Message-ID: <32500482.301223582409213.JavaMail.SYSTEM@endor>
To: Henrik Nordstrom <henrik@henriknordstrom.net>
CC: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
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?



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
Received on Thursday, 9 October 2008 22:51:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 1 October 2015 05:36:31 UTC