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.Received on Monday, 13 November 1995 16:02:11 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 2 February 2023 18:42:56 UTC