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 Montulli       
       Netscape Communications Corp.

Received on Monday, 13 November 1995 16:02:11 UTC