- From: Yaron Goland <yarong@microsoft.com>
- Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 14:30:58 -0700
- To: Kornel Lesinski <kornel@geekhood.net>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
I ran into this exact same problem. In the end we choose another approach but the lack of a definition in RFC 2616 on how to extend ranges was a problem. Another big problem is that certain servers (who shall remain nameless) seem to believe that the range values must be integers. I don't see anything in RFC 2616 that seems to require that. But RFC 2616 does seem ambiguous on the subject. This would seem like a good issue for the HTTPBis issue list. Thanks, Yaron > -----Original Message----- > From: ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org] > On Behalf Of Kornel Lesinski > Sent: Friday, August 24, 2007 4:15 PM > To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org > Subject: Custom Ranges > > > > I'm writing application that would benefit greatly from being able to > use > Range requests with custom units and range definitions instead of > bytes. > > The RFC 2616 seems to suggest such possibility in 3.12 Range Units: > there's a "other-range-unit" defined. > > However definition of Content-Range uses "ranges-specifier" and Range > uses > "content-range-spec", which both seem to allow only byte ranges. > > In such case, is there any use for "other-range-unit" in Accept-Ranges? > > If I wish to use custom ranges, should I stay clear of Range/Content- > Range > and status 206? What is the best alternative? (custom headers + Vary? > Piggybacking my range spec on E-Tags?) > > -- > regards, Kornel Lesinski
Received on Wednesday, 29 August 2007 21:31:13 UTC