- From: Alexei Kosut <akosut@nueva.pvt.k12.ca.us>
- Date: Sun, 12 Nov 1995 00:08:42 -0800 (PST)
- To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@avron.ICS.UCI.EDU>
- Cc: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
On Sat, 11 Nov 1995, Roy T. Fielding wrote: > > Request-Range: bytes=500-999 > > Because it screws up caching by hierarchical proxies. Oh. Very good point. I hadn't thought of that. > Asking for a partial GET changes the meaning of the header fields returned > in the response, which in turn requires that we either use a different > method or a different status code. Hmmmmm... what would be the effect > of adding "205 Partial Content"? Well, it would mean 205 couldn't be used for Reset Document, as was discussed a couple months ago on this list, and that most agreed was a good idea (it would reset the document to how the browser originally received it, clearing forms and so forth, sort of like 204 No Content). Except for that, a Partial Content response seems good. Satisfies my thought, which was that a non-byte range server should just return the full document (with status 200). --/ Alexei Kosut <akosut@nueva.pvt.k12.ca.us> /--------/ Lefler on IRC ----------------------------/ <http://www.nueva.pvt.k12.ca.us/~akosut/> The viewpoints expressed above are entirely false, and in no way represent Alexei Kosut nor any other person or entity. /--------------
Received on Sunday, 12 November 1995 00:16:07 UTC