- From: Brian Behlendorf <brian@organic.com>
- Date: Thu, 18 May 1995 12:42:12 -0700 (PDT)
- To: David - Morris <dwm@shell.portal.com>
- Cc: John Franks <john@math.nwu.edu>, luotonen@netscape.com, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
On Thu, 18 May 1995, David - Morris wrote: > On Thu, 18 May 1995, John Franks wrote: > > Two issues have been raised that I would like to hear more discussion > > on: > > > > Should byteranges be 0 based or 1 based. My initial view was that > > It really depends on who is providing the values. Only a subset of > programmers think of the first object in an ordered set as being > the 0th object. People think of '1' (one) as the first object. If > there is any expectation that people will enter the values, one > is the correct choice. Well, we do have to settle on a standard though, since we're going to rely proxy servers to reassemble full documents from byte ranges. At least that was my interpretation of Ari's proposal - the proxy needs to know if "1-end" means the complete document or not. Now we get into some other subtleties - can we really reconstruct a document from its fragments? This seems to be the biggest selling point of standardizing this whole thing - not only can a proxy that has byterange 50-100 of a document serve up a request for byterange 60-80, but if a proxy had 50-100 and 90-120, it could conceivably service a request for 80-110 (*only* if the last-modified times matched though). Okay, so doing this for byteranges isn't a big leap conceptually, but what about for the other fragments proposed? Can we do a similar composition for lines, for paragraphs, for words? Will "paragraph 3" promise to be everything up to "paragraph 4"? I guess this is a quality of implementation issue. Something in the back of my head is screaming "Hytime". Brian --=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-- brian@organic.com brian@hyperreal.com http://www.[hyperreal,organic].com/
Received on Thursday, 18 May 1995 12:44:22 UTC