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

Re: Test Cases: moving forward

From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 25 May 2010 23:17:13 +1000
Message-ID: <AANLkTikb05Drf_hTqg4YZmbS1nwNTnn_k-0qz03Fv180@mail.gmail.com>
To: RaphaŽl Troncy <raphael.troncy@eurecom.fr>
Cc: Media Fragment <public-media-fragment@w3.org>
2010/5/25 RaphaŽl Troncy <raphael.troncy@eurecom.fr>:
> Hi Silvia,
>> If it's a 200 or a 206 - they are both successes - that's all that
>> counts. Not hard to check for these two alternatives. I'm just
>> flagging what will happen in reality on the 'net.
> So pushing the line a bit further: a legacy browser as of today, that always
> send a normal request ignoring the media fragment, retrieve the whole
> resource, will also be compliant with the Media Fragment URI spec? So why
> bother implementing it? :-)

Actually, a modern legacy browser (current Opera, Firefox, Chrome,
Safari) will send byte range requests for Web media resources and will
thus receive a 206 anyway. ;-)

We canot just check on the HTTP status codes whether a browser
supports media fragments.

Received on Tuesday, 25 May 2010 13:18:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:52:44 UTC