W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-media-fragment@w3.org > June 2010

Re: 206 and extra headers

From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2010 18:43:48 +1000
Message-ID: <AANLkTilruxh1jCVri-DIc3eW38RVzBk8kGR_wrDUDAno@mail.gmail.com>
To: raphael.troncy@eurecom.fr
Cc: Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>, public-media-fragment@w3.org
2010/6/8 RaphaŽl Troncy <raphael.troncy@cwi.nl>:
> Hi Slvia, Yves,
>
>> I'm going to have to step back and try and understand this from the
>> ground up. This explanation is a bit too dense for me. :-)
>
> Thanks a lot! Your long post helped me to understand the issue :-) In a
> nutshell, I come to the same conclusion than you Silvia, that is:
>
>> I honestly fail to construct a situation where we would use If-Range
>> with non-byte-ranges, but please try.
>
> ... except for one case, that is perhaps what Yves had in mind: the case
> where the UA has just received the first bytes of the resources that allows
> to decode the media (e.g. section 5.2.1 in our doc). Is it a boundary case?
>
> Furthermore, should we write down explicitly in the specification the
> variant that Silvia has just made in case the connexion is broken and a
> If-Range could be used in a subsequent request?

We could quite simply state that in If-Range requests only byte ranges
are allowed - that would totally side-step the issue.

But I do not claim to have completely understood the issue yet - I am
still waiting for Yves to come back with a use case that is realistic
and needs If-Range and media fragments in one request....


Cheers,
Silvia.
Received on Tuesday, 8 June 2010 08:44:43 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 21 September 2011 12:13:39 GMT