Re: Comments on Byte range draft

Larry Masinter wrote:
> Wait wait, I keep on saying "if-not-modified-since" and you keep on
> replying "if-modified-since".
> Normally, GET with caching uses 'if-modified-since', i.e., give me the
> data if it's newer than/different from what I already have.
> However, GET of a byte range need the converse. It's "give me this
> byte range of this object, UNLESS the object is newer than/different
> from what I already have".
> The sense is different. HTTP doesn't have a "if-not-modified-since",
> and would need it if you want byte ranges to actually work with data
> that might change.

I agree with you.  I think that "if-not-modified-since" would
be a great addition and would work well for byte-ranges.
It should be tied into the header some how though.

Maybe we should make "if-not-modified-since" an optional
attribute to the request-range header.

Therefore a byte range request would look like:

GET /byterange-capable-document HTTP/1.0
Request-Range: bytes=500-999; if-not-modified-since="DATE"

We should also be able to send size checksums, so we
could add 'if-size-equal="LENGTH"' as well.

Lou Montulli       
       Netscape Communications Corp.

Received on Monday, 13 November 1995 17:39:49 UTC