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: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2012 23:04:33 +0200
Message-ID: <508857E1.2040809@gmx.de>
To: Zhong Yu <zhong.j.yu@gmail.com>
CC: "Adrien W. de Croy" <adrien@qbik.com>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 2012-10-24 23:00, Zhong Yu wrote:
> 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.


Well, we know that it *is* used.

Best regards, Julian
Received on Wednesday, 24 October 2012 21:05:14 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 24 October 2012 21:05:16 GMT