Re: Comments on Byte range draft

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.                                           
                 "Shut up and eat your vegetables!"

Received on Monday, 13 November 1995 16:09:00 UTC