W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > October to December 1995

Re: Comments on Byte range draft

From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@avron.ICS.UCI.EDU>
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 1995 01:47:52 -0800
To: Alexei Kosut <akosut@nueva.pvt.k12.ca.us>
Cc: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Message-Id: <9511120147.aa27225@paris.ics.uci.edu>
>> 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). 

Uh, right, I guess I forgot to write that down -- weird.  I do remember
the discussion, though, and will include it in the draft.

> 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).

I guess we'll make it "206 Partial Content" then.

 ...Roy T. Fielding
    Department of Information & Computer Science    (fielding@ics.uci.edu)
    University of California, Irvine, CA 92717-3425    fax:+1(714)824-4056
Received on Sunday, 12 November 1995 01:53:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 2 February 2023 18:42:56 UTC