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

Re: #90: multipart/byteranges

From: Henrik Nordstrom <henrik@henriknordstrom.net>
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2008 22:49:17 +0100
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1226699357.26491.18.camel@henriknordstrom.net>
On tor, 2008-11-13 at 17:10 -0800, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> So far, discussion of this issue <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/90 
>  > seems to centre around disallowing the use of multipart/byteranges  
> as a message delimiter, because it is not widely implemented, and  
> because chunked encoding can be used instead.
> Any objections to doing so?

None here, except that I don't really see it needed.

P1 4.4 Message Length (and 2616 4.4) already supports this view
indirectly, with multipart/byteranges being the next lowest priority
message delimiting, only close of connection has lower priority..

P1 4.4 #4 also considerably restricts when this media type is allowed
with a clear MUST NOT.

The text in the multipart/byteranges appendix is only relevant in the
scope where this media type is allowed to be used. P5 Appendix A.
Internet Media Type multipart/byteranges is also quite clear on that
this media type only applies to 206 responses under specific

So I can't find anything even remotely indicating multipart/byteranges
is meant to be generally accepted or parsed outside the context of 206
responses to multi-range request. 


Received on Friday, 14 November 2008 21:50:03 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:10:47 UTC