- From: David Robinson <drtr1@cus.cam.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 13 Mar 95 12:27 GMT
- To: DINGLE@ksvi.mff.cuni.cz
- Cc: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
I think this should only be a transport issue, not a document issue. Thus I think it is inappropriate to put bytes ranges into the URI. If you do put byte ranges in the URI, then you are trying to identify part of a resource; as Owen Rees said: > The retrieval of parts of resources is more a question of the naming of the > parts of a structured resource, and is not really an HTTP protocol issue. The > question of what constitutes a resource, and how you name resources that are > parts of collections is the sort of issue that crops up on the URI list, and > an issue that does not seem to have any completely general solutions. Whereas a transport protocol feature that allows partial document retrieval is not attempting to name parts of resources. It's up to the client to decide whether the data it was sent makes any sense in the context of earlier retrievals. Obviously you would want the server to add object-body headers to help the client, such as unique resource ids, last-modified dates etc. David.
Received on Monday, 13 March 1995 04:35:30 UTC