- From: Fall, Kevin <kfall@qualcomm.com>
- Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2012 16:58:20 +0000
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- CC: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
[KF] comments inline... On 9/18/12 10:51 AM PDT, "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote: >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? >>... > >The authors aren't relevant here; the Working Group is. [KF] ok. > >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. [KF] fair enough. > >(The situation for HTTP/2.0 is slightly different) [KF] Right. So, is the group comfortable with considering this issue in the context of HTTP/2.0 discussions? thx - Kevin > >Best regards, Julian
Received on Thursday, 27 September 2012 16:59:03 UTC