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.
chuck@starnine.com                             http://www.starnine.com/
cshotton@biap.com                                  http://www.biap.com/
                 "Shut up and eat your vegetables!"