W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ldp-wg@w3.org > February 2013

Re: ISSUE-33

From: Wilde, Erik <Erik.Wilde@emc.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2013 11:58:31 -0500
To: Sergio Fernández <sergio.fernandez@salzburgresearch.at>
CC: Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>, "public-ldp-wg@w3.org" <public-ldp-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CD3EE05C.D61E%erik.wilde@emc.com>
hello sergio.

On 2013-02-11 17:48 , "Sergio Fernández"
<sergio.fernandez@salzburgresearch.at> wrote:
>On 11/02/13 17:35, Wilde, Erik wrote:
>>http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2616#section-14.5, it's a rather simple
>> mechanism that allows servers and clients to transfers parts of
>>resources.
>> very helpful when you download this interesting 4.5gb hires movie and
>>the
>> transfer stops at 4.3gb. the client can then simply continue with a new
>> request, instead of having to restart.
>To the best of my knowledge, currently there are two scenarios where
>that's possible:
>* Binary resources using the Accept-Ranges HTTP header

it's HTTP, so any resource is binary (so to speak). HTTP doesn't care
whether it's serving MP4 or RDF/XML.

>* HTML resources using rel="next" rel="prev" headers

that's a bit surprising here. that really doesn't have anything to do with
range requests.

>As I said in the call, I'm not sure how this fits with RDF resources...
>So, if we don't find both a proper use case and a clean proposal for the
>protocol, I'd prefer not to force having pagination on LDPR.

as long as stable representations are being served, byte requests are
working fine for any media type. apart from that, HTTP also allows to use
other units (http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2616#section-3.12), so you
could imagine getting fancy and add a "triples" range request unit. but i
don't think that's a great idea, and definitely not something we're
chartered to do.

cheers,

dret.
Received on Monday, 11 February 2013 16:59:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 9 May 2013 13:44:29 UTC