Re: Comments on Byte range draft

>Benjamin Franz wrote:
>
>What are you talking about? One more time: BYTE RANGES
>SHOULD REFER TO POSITIONING WITHIN THE BYTE STREAM BETWEEN THE SERVER
>AND THE CLIENT NOT WITHIN THE SERVER'S OR CLIENT'S LOCAL REPRESENTATION OF
>THAT STREAM. I have no idea how to make the statement any simpler. This
>is not about *what* the data is - it is about *how* the data is transported.

If byte ranges do not address an object on the server, or a part thereof
(and part needs to be defined in that case), then they do not belong
in the URL space.

I have nothing against byte ranges, or partial transfers in general,
but limiting oneself to byte ranges, and adding the syntax to the URL
space, is not the way to do it.