- From: Benjamin Franz <snowhare@netimages.com>
- Date: Mon, 13 Nov 1995 19:37:34 -0800 (PST)
- To: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
On Mon, 13 Nov 1995, Gavin Nicol wrote: > >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. I have no problem with that. My initial leaning towards putting it in the URL for the sake of not breaking proxies was more than adequately handled by the header proposal. I have a deep suspicion that this is a case of violent agreement. I was concerned about partial caching (something I think is *badly* needed) while you were concerned about the byte range being part of the URL (something you are massively opposed to). We were simply not talking about the same thing. ;-) -- Benjamin Franz
Received on Monday, 13 November 1995 19:29:45 UTC