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: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 17:47:10 +0100
Message-ID: <50A51C8E.9070503@gmx.de>
To: Zhong Yu <zhong.j.yu@gmail.com>
CC: Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On 2012-11-15 17:39, Zhong Yu wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 4:30 AM, Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org> wrote:
>> On Wed, 24 Oct 2012, Zhong Yu wrote:
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>>
>> Note that you can't have Content-Range and Content-Type:
>> multipart/byteranges in a 206
>
> In my example, the request is for a single range, the selected
> representation's own content type is multipart/byteranges. Then the
> server has no choice but to respond like that.

Exactly. We should remove all special-casing with respect to this. We 
could keep a warning that some clients might be confused by the presence 
of that type, though.

> ...

Best regards, Julian
Received on Thursday, 15 November 2012 16:47:39 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 15 November 2012 16:47:44 GMT