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

Re: The problem of having multiple Content-Range headers in HTTP response

From: Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2010 10:47:19 -0500 (EST)
To: RaphaŽl Troncy <raphael.troncy@eurecom.fr>
cc: Conrad Parker <conrad@metadecks.org>, Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>, Media Fragment <public-media-fragment@w3.org>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.1.10.1003051045500.21692@wnl.j3.bet>
On Thu, 4 Mar 2010, RaphaŽl Troncy wrote:

>> the comma thing is not about "will be parsed to", but "is equivalent
>> to". So, an application could add the two headers in order:
>> 
>> Content-Range: track audio
>> Content-Range: subtitle/653.791
>
> My understanding was: this is invalid since we cannot have multiple 
> Content-Range headers in a response. Now, you just verbatim in another email 
> a paragraph from RFC2616 (Section 4.2 Message Headers) that seems to say that 
> this is *valid*. So I'm now confused.
> Yves, could you please provide us a pointer that reference your original 
> claim?

Section 4.2 says that it is allowed only if the syntax of the headers 
allows it, however:

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-p5-range-08#section-5.2
<<
    Unlike byte-ranges-specifier values (see Section 5.4.1), a byte-
    range-resp-spec MUST only specify one range, and MUST contain
    absolute byte positions for both the first and last byte of the
    range.
>>
Plus the grammar does not allow comma separated lists.

-- 
Baroula que barouleras, au tiťu toujou t'entourneras.

         ~~Yves
Received on Friday, 5 March 2010 15:47:23 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 21 September 2011 12:13:38 GMT