- From: Brian Smith <brian@briansmith.org>
- Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2009 22:27:48 -0600
- To: "'Mark Nottingham'" <mnot@mnot.net>, "'HTTP Working Group'" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Mark Nottingham wrote: > Roy pointed out in conversation that 206 is most relevant here; it > changes the interpretation of a response fundamentally. I.e., it's > legitimate for a 206 to have directives that make it cacheable, but if > a cache doesn't understand the 206 status code, it can't be cached. For 206, is it really the status code that changes the caching behavior, or is it the presence of the Content-Range header in the response? AFAICT, it would be clearer to replace all the requirements in P5 & P6 specifically mentioning 206 responses with statements "any response with a Content-Range header." Actually, what is the difference between a 200 response with a Content-Range and a 206 response with a Content-Range? The 206 status code seems to mean 200 + "whoa, look out, there's probably a Content-Range header." But, there's no prohibition against using Content-Range with other status codes (especially extension status codes). Regards, Brian
Received on Wednesday, 4 November 2009 04:28:18 UTC