- From: Gavin Nicol <gtn@ebt.com>
- Date: Sun, 12 Nov 1995 20:25:11 -0500
- To: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
>> Byte ranges are a lazy replacement for a general naming mechanism. > >You still have those blinders on. The whole universe of documents is >not SGML/HTML/PDF/(favorite text markup language with naming mechanism). >The ability to restart an interrupted transfer is an item that naming >mechanisms are insufficiently powerful to handle in the general case. >Byte ranges are not a 'lazy replacement' - they are the only general >mechanism for restarting interrupted transfers of documents containing >arbitrary content. Well, let's agree to disagree on the "only way". I am not saying that byte ranges should not be implemented, but that a general naming/addressing scheme is needed, and byte range addressing should be possible as part of it.
Received on Sunday, 12 November 1995 17:25:33 UTC