Re: Comments on Byte range draft

Shel Kaphan wrote:
> 

>  >
>  > What you are saying is that you still want to retrieve a given URL (from
>  > the client's perspective), but you'd like to GET only the portion you don't
>  > already have. Rather like the if-modified-since header affects server
>  > responses, a byte-range: header seems more appropriate than convoluting the
>  > URL itself. I guess it's really just a matter of semantics, but all the
>  > special punctuation, separators and other ca-ca that hang off the end URLs
>  > could more easily be represented in many cases as header fields in a GET or
>  > POST request.
>  >
>         ...
> 
> Yes, on this, at least, I agree with you.
> 

I would be happy with a good header proposal, but I wouldn't
support a new method since byterange requests could apply
to multiple methods.  Brian's header proposal looks like a
good start...

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