- From: Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com>
- Date: Tue, 4 Mar 1997 21:57:49 PST
- To: Yaron Goland <yarong@microsoft.com>
- CC: "'dgd@cs.bu.edu'" <dgd@cs.bu.edu>, w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
I read the whole thing. I didn't take BYTEHEAD seriously (perhaps it was your smiley) partly because the combination of HEAD and range retrieval didn't seem to be adequate to discover the ways in which a resource could logically be decomposed, much less the proper way to find the names of the parts; your subsequent proposal for LOCKSBYTE, being a kludge on top of a non-functional subproposal didn't seem to be too serious either. If you do mean for these to be taken seriously, perhaps you'd want to change "BYTE" to "RANGE" and deal with the issue of disjoint ranges, the mechanism by which AcceptRanges might be discovered, whether AcceptRanges applies to accepting locks on ranges, etc. otherwise, it just bytes. Larry -- http://www.parc.xerox.com/masinter
Received on Wednesday, 5 March 1997 01:58:06 UTC