Re: Comments on Byte range draft

Shel Kaphan wrote:
> 
> Lou Montulli writes:
>         ...
>    An If-modified-since
>  > request can guarantee that the object hasn't changed.  From
>  > there it's just a simple matter of requesting the parts that
>  > are missing.
>  >
> 
> That makes this into a two-round-trip protocol to receive just
> a part of the object (GET if-modified-since, 304, GET byte-range)
> unless you want to change the semantics of GET if-modified-since,
> which seems like barking up the wrong tree.  (What would it be?
> GET if-modified-since unless there's a byte-range in the URL, in which
> case, instead of returning the 304, return the byte-range??? Yuck!)
> Orthogonality!  Orthogonality!!!

I agree, a better solution would be nice.  I'm flexible, if
we can get most people to agree on a header solution that
also includes one trip if-modified-since support I think
we would all be better off. 

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