Re: Issue with "bytes" Range Unit and live streaming

On 5/11/16 6:40 PM, Martin Thomson wrote:
> On 12 May 2016 at 10:59, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:
>> 1. Changing the 'bytes' range-unit to allow this use case
>> 2. Minting a new range-unit
> I suggested a third option: work around the limitation.  Was there a
> reason that isn't feasible?  (There are probably many, but I saw none
> offered.)
>
I'm definitely OK with a third option.

If no one thinks it's safe to define new Range Units, perhaps the 
"Range" and "Content-Range" ABNF can have the ability to express 
non-"bytes" Range Units removed and a new header can be defined which 
has the same semantics, produces a Partial Content response, references 
the Unit Range registry and won't hose up proxies and other entities 
that aren't coded to deal with something other than "bytes" or "none" in 
"Accept-Range"?

e.g. "Range-Units-Accepted" and "Range-Unit" headers could be defined...

cp


-- 

craig pratt

Caspia Consulting

craig@ecaspia.com

503.746.8008

Received on Thursday, 12 May 2016 02:19:42 UTC