- From: Kris Zyp <kris@sitepen.com>
- Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2008 17:43:52 -0600
- To: "Jamie Lokier" <jamie@shareable.org>
- Cc: "Henrik Nordstrom" <henrik@henriknordstrom.net>, "ietf-http-wg" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
----- Original Message ----- From: "Jamie Lokier" <jamie@shareable.org> To: "Kris Zyp" <kris@sitepen.com> Cc: "Henrik Nordstrom" <henrik@henriknordstrom.net>; "ietf-http-wg" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2008 5:22 PM Subject: Re: issue 85 - range unit extensions > Kris Zyp wrote: >> >> >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... > > What about > > Range: items=2-4 > Range: items=2-5 > In my example there were four items in the array, so your Range requests (2-4 and 2-5) should result in 416 Requested Range Not Satisfiable. > Is the JSON parser expected to look at the text it receives to decide > whether to append "]"? The JSON parser could look at the text or the Content-Range header (to see if it received the last item). I am not sure which would be more reliable. > If so, why bother sending the "[" and "]" at all? The cumulative concatenated representation must be valid JSON. Kris
Received on Tuesday, 2 September 2008 23:45:58 UTC