- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2008 18:49:07 -0800
- To: Henrik Nordstrom <henrik@henriknordstrom.net>
- Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
I think the issue is that allowing a special case where it is allowed makes parsers significantly more complex, and isn't in wide use anyway. On 14/11/2008, at 1:49 PM, Henrik Nordstrom wrote: > 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 > conditions. > > 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. > > Regards > Henrik -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Saturday, 15 November 2008 02:49:47 UTC