- From: John Franks <john@math.nwu.edu>
- Date: Mon, 1 Jun 1998 19:13:55 -0500 (CDT)
- To: http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com
- Cc: Alex Rousskov <rousskov@nlanr.net>
I recently received the message below. Looking at draft-ietf-http-v11-spec-rev-03 it seems the description of multipart/byteranges leaves a lot to be desired on the subject of where <CRLF> should occur. Is there a definitive answer to this? John Franks john@math.nwu.edu ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 1 Jun 1998 16:04:33 -0600 (MDT) From: Alex Rousskov <rousskov@nlanr.net> To: John Franks <john@dehn.math.nwu.edu> Subject: Re: Server: WN/2.0.0pre Hi John, In implementing multipart range responses you probably followed RFC 2046 (prepending boundaries with <CRLF>). However, HTTP RFC (2068) gives an example where boundaries are _not_ prepended with <CRLF> (note that there is only one empty line after headers): HTTP/1.1 206 Partial content Date: Wed, 15 Nov 1995 06:25:24 GMT Last-modified: Wed, 15 Nov 1995 04:58:08 GMT Content-type: multipart/byteranges; boundary=THIS_STRING_SEPARATES --THIS_STRING_SEPARATES Content-type: application/pdf Content-range: bytes 500-999/8000 ...the first range... --THIS_STRING_SEPARATES Content-type: application/pdf Content-range: bytes 7000-7999/8000 ...the second range --THIS_STRING_SEPARATES-- How did you decide which RFC to follow? Any "well-known" clarifications that I am not aware about? Thanks! Alex.
Received on Monday, 1 June 1998 17:19:26 UTC