- From: John Franks <john@math.nwu.edu>
- Date: Tue, 4 Jun 1996 14:55:31 -0500 (CDT)
- To: Dave Kristol <dmk@allegra.att.com>
- Cc: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
On Tue, 4 Jun 1996, Dave Kristol wrote:
> The new draft says:
>
> If the last-byte-pos value is absent, it is assumed to be equal to the
> current length of the entity-body in bytes.
>
> If the last-byte-pos value is larger than the current length of the
> entity-body, it is assumed to be equal to the current length of the
> entity-body. This allows, for example, a client to attempt to limit the
> number of bytes retrieved without knowing the size of the entity.
>
> Actually, the correct value is length minus one. So this should read:
>
> If the last-byte-pos value is absent, it is assumed to be equal to one
> less than the current length of the entity-body in bytes.
>
> If the last-byte-pos value is larger than the current length of the
> entity-body, it is assumed to be equal to one less than the current
> length of the entity-body. This allows, for example, a client to
> attempt to limit the number of bytes retrieved without knowing the
> size of the entity.
>
> Dave Kristol
>
>
How about this? It might be clearer.
If the last-byte-pos value is absent, it is assumed to be equal to
that value which would result in selecting a range from the
first-byte-position to the end of the entity-body. This value is
one less than the current length of the entity-body in bytes.
If the last-byte-pos value is greater than or equal to the current
length of the entity-body, it is assumed to be equal to one less than
the current length of the entity-body. The range selected will then be
from the first-byte-pos to the end of the entity-body. This allows,
for example, a client to attempt to limit the number of bytes
retrieved without knowing the size of the entity.
John Franks Dept of Math. Northwestern University
john@math.nwu.edu
Received on Tuesday, 4 June 1996 12:58:08 UTC