- From: Kris Zyp <kris@sitepen.com>
- Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2008 21:34:56 -0600
- To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>
- Cc: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
> On Sep 1, 2008, at 8:51 AM, Kris Zyp wrote: >> I certainly don't mind using a different name, if the HTTP working feels >> that's more appropriate. I just figured "items" might be applicable in >> multiple content types (applicable to content types that support a >> top-level array-like construct), but I understand that if it is felt to >> be too generic to have a real clear purpose in every situation. Maybe >> "array-items"? > > Range "items" is fine. It is not specific to the media type. Each > resource > can have its own notion of what it means to be an item boundary -- all > that > matters is that they be sequentially numbered from a standard start value > (0 or 1) and that the items combined in order are consistent with what > would > have been received in a 200 response to GET. Yes, agreed. Start value of 0 seems most logical and consistent with byte range units. Kris
Received on Tuesday, 2 September 2008 03:36:01 UTC