At 3:55 PM 11/13/95, Lou Montulli wrote: >Shel Kaphan wrote: >> 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... I'm certainly not advocating a new request method by any stretch. A simple header that describes the "unit of measure" (e.g., byte) and the offset and length info is more than sufficient. For that matter, simply moving the proposed URL extensions into a header field would work. Anything in the header has the added benefit of being non-trivial for browser users to monkey with. I can think of lots of nasty scenarios where users misuse byte range additions on URLs. --_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_- Chuck Shotton StarNine Technologies, Inc. chuck@starnine.com http://www.starnine.com/ cshotton@biap.com http://www.biap.com/ "Shut up and eat your vegetables!"Received on Monday, 13 November 1995 16:09:00 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 2 February 2023 18:42:56 UTC