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

Re: Comments on Byte range draft

From: Lou Montulli <montulli@mozilla.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 1995 15:49:00 -0800
Message-Id: <30A7D96C.52BF@mozilla.com>
To: Shel Kaphan <sjk@amazon.com>
Cc: Gavin Nicol <gtn@ebt.com>, fielding@avron.ICS.UCI.EDU, masinter@parc.xerox.com, ari@netscape.com, john@math.nwu.edu, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
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 Montulli                 http://www.netscape.com/people/montulli/
       Netscape Communications Corp.
Received on Monday, 13 November 1995 15:56:34 UTC

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