W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > October to December 1995

Re: Comments on Byte range draft

From: Simon Spero <ses@tipper.oit.unc.edu>
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 1995 16:23:18 -0800 (PST)
To: Lou Montulli <montulli@mozilla.com>
Cc: Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com>, ietf-lists@proper.com, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Message-Id: <Pine.SOL.3.91.951113161817.17098C-100000@chivalry>
On Mon, 13 Nov 1995, Lou Montulli wrote:

> Simon Spero wrote:
> We don't need a hack here.  Using a 205 response to signify a 
> partial document is being returned seems far better than 
> the "no-cache" nonsense.  The 205 response is also necessary
> for the client to tell the difference between a full document 
> and a partial document response.

Lou- the 205 response is not part of http/1.0 as described, and this can 
lead to some caching confusion; if a 1.1 client is talking through a 1.0 
proxy to a 1.1 client, and a partial fetch is done, it's possible to the 
1.0 proxy to keep a copy of the partial contents, yet not be aware that 
the contents are bogus- the next client to do a fetch could end up with 
partial data, yet not be aware of it.

Received on Monday, 13 November 1995 16:25:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 2 February 2023 18:42:56 UTC