- From: Lou Montulli <montulli@mozilla.com>
- Date: Mon, 13 Nov 1995 16:11:38 -0800
- To: Simon Spero <ses@tipper.oit.unc.edu>
- Cc: Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com>, ietf-lists@proper.com, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Simon Spero wrote:
>
> Just a few points:
>
> If the byte range is carried in the URL, and is generated by the client,
> then the client needs to know whether or not the server suports byte
> ranges before generating the request- otherwise the request will be
> rejected. If the information is stored in a header, then servers that
> don't understand the header will just send the entire object.
>
...
> I'd go for the later approach. Add nocache to make sure that proxies
> which don't understand byte-ranges don't cache it, and add another pragma
> to reenable caching for proxies which do understand byte-ranges.
>
> Request-
> X-Byte-Range: [start]-[finish]
>
> Response-
> Pragma: no-cache, cache-if-you-understand-byte-range
> X-Byte-Range: [start]-[finish]
>
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
--
Lou Montulli http://www.netscape.com/people/montulli/
Netscape Communications Corp.
Received on Monday, 13 November 1995 16:35:31 UTC