- From: Kris Zyp <kris@sitepen.com>
- Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2008 13:49:54 -0600
- To: "Henrik Nordstrom" <henrik@henriknordstrom.net>
- Cc: "ietf-http-wg" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
> tis 2008-09-02 klockan 08:37 -0600 skrev Kris Zyp: > >> I didn't know there was such rules for alternate range units. > > There isn't any struct rules for range units, but this property is > highly desireable for different implementations to interoperate properly > when it comes to merging and splitting. After thinking about this, I actually have no problem with this rule being enforced, I think that is a good suggestion. I had been thinking it would be more desirable that the individual "ranged" response representations all be valid complete JSON messages themselves, but I don't think that is necessary. I am perfectly fine with have ranges all being concatenable without any JSON parsing. GET /jsonResource Range: items=0-1 response: ["a","b", GET /jsonResource Range: items=2- response: "c","d"] GET /jsonResource response: ["a","b","c","d"] A puts little extra overhead on the client doing JSON parsing to properly pre/postpend the string to parse it, but this is a negligible cost... Thanks, Kris
Received on Tuesday, 2 September 2008 19:50:56 UTC