- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2012 19:51:21 +0200
- To: "Fall, Kevin" <kfall@qualcomm.com>
- CC: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 2012-09-18 19:05, Fall, Kevin wrote:
> ...
> I think you do understand the use case. However, while I believe I
> understand the original intent of Range, it seems to me it is a reasonable
> if not elegant way to do "server driven" partial content. Indeed, would
> you agree that the method I suggested above (client suggests multiple
> ranges including (0-), (0-) would be "legal" to indicate to the server
> that it is permitted to repond with multiple ranges of sizes chosen by the
> server?
>
> Another angle on the issue: if Range winds up not being accepted as the
> basis for the mechanism of "server driven" partial content, then
> undoubtedly somebody is going to suggest some other orthogonal thing for
> it (as I think there do exist legitimate use cases for live-style HTTP
> streaming). Personally I'd rather see whatever mechanism it is to be
> harmonious with client-side partial content. (my $0.02).
>
> {FWIW, I'm willing to take a stab at a couple of paragraphs to describe
> this 'server driven' case, if the authors of httpbis-p5-range are
> amenable.}
> ...
The authors aren't relevant here; the Working Group is.
That being said, our current charter (for HTTP/1.1) essentially forbids
to do anything that could break existing clients, and also doesn't
really allow us to invent anything new.
(The situation for HTTP/2.0 is slightly different)
Best regards, Julian
Received on Tuesday, 18 September 2012 17:52:25 UTC