W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > October to December 2012

Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-p5-range-21, "3.2 416 Requested Range Not Satisfiable"

From: Zhong Yu <zhong.j.yu@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2012 16:00:04 -0500
Message-ID: <CACuKZqFW0i8_WGND9XLh2Sq4ttCruZy7svPp9TBhPz4OCZdntw@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Adrien W. de Croy" <adrien@qbik.com>
Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 2:58 PM, Adrien W. de Croy <adrien@qbik.com> wrote:
> I've always considered multipart/byteranges to be less than optimal design
> for the problem.
>
> A server should be able to send the byte ranges coalesced in a single
> message body, since it advertised the ranges coming back it's possible to
> unpick it, and doesn't then require the part separators etc.

That doesn't work for other range units though (but does anyone
actually use non-byte units?)

I agree multipart sucks. It was probably designed for human eyes? It's
hard for programming, both in generating and in parsing.

>
> that way you don't need to overload the Content-Type which then removes your
> ability to transfer the actual content type (although presumably this has
> been communicated earlier).
>
> Does anyone actually use multiple ranges?

It doesn't seem necessary at all. The client can always send multiple
requests, each for a single range; the overhead of multiple requests
is probably inconsequential compared to the bytes of the body.

>
>
> ------ Original Message ------
> From: "Zhong Yu" <zhong.j.yu@gmail.com>
> To: "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
> Cc: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
> Sent: 25/10/2012 4:52:03 a.m.
> Subject: Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-p5-range-21, "3.2 416 Requested Range Not
> Satisfiable"
>>
>> Wouldn't "Content-Type: multipart/byteranges" cause confusions if it's
>> used anywhere other than in a 206 response?
>>
>> Suppose a representation itself has the content type of
>> "multipart/byteranges"
>>
>>   Get /slivers HTTP/1.1
>>
>>
>>   HTTP/1.1 200 OK
>>   Content-Type: multipart/byteranges
>>
>> That's pretty confusing for observers. Even more confusingly
>>
>>   Get/slivers HTTP/1.1
>>   Range: bytes=0-499
>>
>>
>>   HTTP/1.1 206 Partial Content
>>   Content-Type: multipart/byteranges
>>   Content-Range: bytes 0-499/1234
>>
>> Maybe we should strongly discourage the use of multipart/byteranges in
>> any application except in a HTTP 206 response.
>>
>> Zhong Yu
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 7:21 AM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-ietf-httpbis-p5-range-21.html#status.416>:
>>>
>>> "When this status code is returned for a byte-range request, the response
>>> SHOULD include a Content-Range header field specifying the current length
>>> of
>>> the representation (see Section 5.2). This response MUST NOT use the
>>> multipart/byteranges content-type. For example,"
>>>
>>> What is this "MUST NOT" about? Are there clients that will ignore the
>>> status
>>> code and assume success if they see the expected content-type?
>>>
>>> Best regards, Julian
>>>
>>>
>>
>
Received on Wednesday, 24 October 2012 21:00:33 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 24 October 2012 21:00:36 GMT