- From: Yaron Goland <yarong@microsoft.com>
- Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 18:41:53 -0800
- To: 'Alexei Kosut' <akosut@nueva.pvt.k12.ca.us>, 'Henrik Frystyk Nielsen' <frystyk@w3.org>, "'http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com'" <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: Thomas Reardon <thomasre@microsoft.com>, Joe Peterson <joepe@microsoft.com>, Rajeev Dujari <rajeevd@microsoft.com>, Richard Firth <rfirth@microsoft.com>
MSIE 3.x does not and MSIE 4 will not make multipart byte-range requests, thus there is nothing to fix in MSIE. It is true that products that interact w/MSIE, like Adobe's PDF plug in, do use multipart byte-ranges. We have no control over third party software as we do not implement support for byte-ranges in any of our software. The best we can do is provide advise. When Adobe built its plug-in, we advised them to use multipart/x-byterange because that was the most advanced spec at the time. We now advise those who ask to use multipart/byterange. If there are any other questions or concerns on the issue of Microsoft and byte-ranges, I am the proper person to speak with. Sincerely, Yaron >-----Original Message----- >From: http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com [SMTP:http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com] >Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 1997 5:48 PM >To: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen >Cc: HTTP Working Group >Subject: Re: Apache Groupy > >On Wed, 19 Feb 1997, Henrik Frystyk Nielsen wrote: > >[The Apache Group's dealings with HTTP/1.1] > >> I think it would be a tremendous help if you wrote up as much as you have >> and send it to the list ASAP. I found it very useful and very productive to >> work with Dean Gaudet on optimizing beta versions of Apache for HTTP/1.1 >> pipelining. > >Okay, here's one: > >I should point out that this is not a problem with the HTTP/1.1 spec >itself, per se, and falls more under the category of "standards are >great; everyone's is different!" > >Section 19.2 of HTTP/1.1 defines multipart/byteranges as the response >media type to be used for a multipart byterange request. Now, this, >and the other byterange sections of the draft (except for If-Range) >were based on the Luotenen/Franks drafts about byteserving. In fact, >the last of those drafts and the HTTP/1.1 semantics are nearly >identical, and almost interoperable. > >Almost. > >These versions of the spec did not define multipart/byteranges. They >used instead multipart/x-byteranges. I won't speculate why, but for >whatever reason, they did. Several browsers were coded to this >now out-of-date specification, including Netscape Navigator 2 and 3, >and Microsoft Internet Explorer 3; several servers were also coded >this way. > >The result? Any HTTP application that implements the HTTP/1.1 >specification for byteranges is not compatible with these >implementations. For example, when Navigator would request a PDF file >(the PDF plugin requests multiple byteranges; one part for each page >of the file, I believe), Apache would send a multipart/byteranges >response. Navigator's behavior is at this point incorrect (basically, >the window just goes blank, at least with the Mac version). > >Our eventual decision was that Apache 1.2b7 (which has not yet been >released) will contain what amount to User-Agent checks for these two >browsers (there may be others, but we are not aware of them), and it >will send multipart/x-byteranges to them. We have also been assured >by Netscape and Microsoft that future versions of their browsers will >understand multipart/byteranges. > >To be sure, neither Navigator nor IE claim to be HTTP/1.1-compliant, >nor do any of the servers that send multipart/x-byteranges by >default. However, they do cause problems with clients and servers that >are compliant with HTTP/1.1 - a spec supposedly 100% >backwards-compatible with HTTP/1.0. > >I guess the problem is also one of interim standards; the spec to >which these HTTP applications adhere no longer exists: It was an >internet draft that expired some time ago. Someone writing a server >today might look at the HTTP/1.0 and HTTP/1.1 specs, and implement a >server (the same applies to a browser; I'm speaking here from my >experiences) that is 100% to-the-letter compliant with both. They >might then assume that their server would be compatible with the >plethora of browsers that are out there. They'd be wrong, at least in >this respect. > >Anyhow, I just thought I'd share that... > >-- >________________________________________________________________________ >Alexei Kosut <akosut@nueva.pvt.k12.ca.us> The Apache HTTP Server >URL: http://www.nueva.pvt.k12.ca.us/~akosut/ http://www.apache.org/ >
Received on Wednesday, 19 February 1997 18:47:03 UTC