Re: Comments on Byte range draft

> You and Larry are looking at this problem with blinders on.
> There are many more uses for byterange URL's than simply
> PDF files.  For instance Netscape 2.0 uses byteranges to
> request parts of files that it didn't get the last time
> you came to a page.  You can therefore interrupt a page
> during download at any time and continue it exactly
> where you left off when you come back to the page.  This
> makes cachine up to 50% more effective at saving bandwidth.

Yes, byte ranges are GREAT! They're wonderful. We should definitely
have byte ranges in HTTP! It's a wonderful addition. Honest!

They just don't belong at the end of arbitrary URLs. Maybe you want to
define a new URL scheme that calls out a new extension to the HTTP
protocol?