- From: Alex Rousskov <rousskov@measurement-factory.com>
- Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 08:59:26 -0700 (MST)
- To: Stefan Eissing <stefan.eissing@greenbytes.de>
- cc: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Stefan, The following paper, written by one of the RFC 2616 authors, may help you to navigate through the ranges, transfer, and content encoding mess (see Figure 4-1b on page 8 if you do not want to read the entire paper). "Clarifying the Fundamentals of HTTP" Jeffrey C. Mogul WWW Conference, 2002 http://research.compaq.com/wrl/people/mogul/www2002/mogulwww2002preprint.pdf HTH, Alex. On Tue, 10 Dec 2002, Stefan Eissing wrote: > I have unsuccessfully tried to google an answer to this, maybe someone > on this list has an answer. > > My understanding of 2616 is that range is applied to the > content-encoded entity. So if an entity is gzipped, the > byte selection is applied on the gzipped representation. > Given that: > > What is a server to do when a client sends a request with > Accept-Encoding: gzip > Range: bytes=0-499 > > Is the server free to chose the content-encoding to its liking > (identity or gzip)? > > Assuming there is a second request later > Accept-Encoding: gzip > Range: bytes=500-1000 > > Is the server allowed to use another content-encoding in the response? > > If yes, that would mean it is purely the client's responsibility > to detect varying content-encodings in partial responses and > act accordingly? > > Or did I misunderstand the order of range and content-encoding > and the byte range is selected on the unencoded entity and > content-encoding is applied *after* the range selection process? > > In that case, a server storing gzipped entities has some work to do > answering range request. It would then need to "uncompress" > (ungzip?) the entity before it can select the correct range. > > Thanks for any help. > > //Stefan > > > -- | HTTP performance - Web Polygraph benchmark www.measurement-factory.com | HTTP compliance+ - Co-Advisor test suite | all of the above - PolyBox appliance
Received on Tuesday, 10 December 2002 10:59:42 UTC