Re: Byteranges with 206 partial content

According to Ari Luotonen:
> 
> 
> Based on the discussion during the past hours, it appears that a
> better way to do byte ranges is indeed via an additional header, and
> with a 206 partial content response code.
> 
> Doing it via a header will still make it work through existing
> proxies, and 206 status code will prevent them from caching it, unless
> they understand what's going on.
> 

I would agree with this.

> An additional feature is to say "give me a range if the document
> hasn't changed, but if it has, send me the entire document".  Similar
> to If-modified-since, but still quite different...  What would you
> call such a header?
> 

"Unless-modified-since"  (send the byte range)

John Franks