Re: Comments on Byte range draft

>> Byte ranges are a lazy replacement for a general naming mechanism.
>You still have those blinders on. The whole universe of documents is
>not SGML/HTML/PDF/(favorite text markup language with naming mechanism).
>The ability to restart an interrupted transfer is an item that naming
>mechanisms are insufficiently powerful to handle in the general case.
>Byte ranges are not a 'lazy replacement' - they are the only general
>mechanism for restarting interrupted transfers of documents containing
>arbitrary content.

Well, let's agree to disagree on the "only way". I am not saying that
byte ranges should not be implemented, but that a general
naming/addressing scheme is needed, and byte range addressing should
be possible as part of it. 

Received on Sunday, 12 November 1995 17:25:33 UTC