Re: Comments on Byte range draft

I suggested before and will suggest again that byte ranges do not
belong in URLs, since the results are not in fact any of the media
types that were identified in "accept:" or are likely to be reported
by content-type, and that byte ranges are likely to become incorrect
if the original data for which the range was valid is replaced with a
new version which does not exactly correspond byte-for-byte by the new

It is a category error. If you want to refer to a part of a structure
by name or structural tag, that would at least be more robust ("give
me the catalog of this PDF document, or give me the data for page 1").

Received on Saturday, 11 November 1995 13:47:55 UTC