W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > July to September 2008

Re: issue 85 - range unit extensions

From: Kris Zyp <kris@sitepen.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2008 21:34:56 -0600
Message-ID: <0ba501c90cac$dfa74780$4200a8c0@kris>
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.

Received on Tuesday, 2 September 2008 03:36:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:13:37 UTC