Gavin Nicol wrote: > > >> incomplete. This is great for small pages, but if you try fetching > >> small peices of a 5MB document, it makes no sense. > > > >What makes you think it makes no sense. > > Give a 5MB HTML document to Netscape Navigator. For certain media > types, and HTML is one, you can request peices (not byte ranges), and > do not need to reparse the data. For example, it makes more sense to > ask for single elements from HTML, than a byte range. I'm not disagreeing with your application, but I am saying that byteranges can make sense for any object, as demonstrated by partial caching. > > >> Byte ranges are a lazy replacement for a general naming mechanism. > > > >What's your naming scheme for JPEG files? How about AVI > >video streams? Bytes are already a general purpose naming scheme, > >and they have been used for a number of years. There is no > >need to invent another one. > > Byte ranges are not sufficient for many data types, and indeed, are > potentially harmful. A general naming mechanism would allow byte range > naming, as well as things like asking for elements m to n in an HTML > document. Ari's proposal allows for generalizable requests. Bytes is simply one of the range request methods. :lou -- Lou Montulli http://www.netscape.com/people/montulli/ Netscape Communications Corp.Received on Monday, 13 November 1995 18:44:59 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 2 February 2023 18:42:56 UTC