RE: new editorial issue RANGE_WITH_CONTENTCODING

Well, for what it's worth, I'm seeing quite a few 206's in my access 
logs, mostly due to Netscape clients resuming interrupted retrievals 
of GIF files. The files aren't compressed on disk, but byte range 
requests certainly are being used.

===
Gregory Woodhouse
San Francisco CIO Field Office - Infrastructure
gregory.woodhouse@med.va.gov
+1 415 744 6362
May the dromedary be with you


----------
From:  David W. Morris [SMTP:dwm@xpasc.com]
Sent:  Friday, November 14, 1997 1:16 PM
To:  Jim Gettys
Cc:  http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com; 
http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Subject:  Re: new editorial issue RANGE_WITH_CONTENTCODING


Without advocating a particular position, I would like to note that
one of the 'justifications' for byte ranges was the ability to
continue retrieving a previously interrupted response. In that mode,
if I were the developer of the client, I would want the byte range
to apply to the compressed form.

In the usage associated with partial retrieval of structured data such 
as
a PDF file, I'd want the byte ranges to apply to the uncompressed
resource.

It would be helpful to know what actual use is being made of byte 
ranges.

Dave Morris

Received on Friday, 14 November 1997 15:24:01 UTC