Re: Comments on Byte range draft

Gavin Nicol wrote:
> 
> >> 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.

Well you should read ARI's draft again because it does specify
a general purpose mechanism of which "bytes" is simply the
first to be used.

:lou
-- 
Lou Montulli                 http://www.netscape.com/people/montulli/
       Netscape Communications Corp.