- From: Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2011 22:38:49 -0400 (EDT)
- To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Fri, 15 Jul 2011, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> Anyone object to stating that Content-Range has no meaning on responses
> that aren't 206's?
>
> Right now we don't say that, and it causes problems; see
> http://gnats.netbsd.org/cgi-bin/query-pr-single.pl?number=45116
The issue here is the presense of a Content-Range header that identifies
the whole representation, if the Content-Range header was identifying a
sub-part it would be even more problematic, as the MUST-level requirement
on C-R matching the payload bytes is in the definition of 206.
Proposal:
In Part5, section 5.2:
Old:
<<
The "Content-Range" header field is sent with a partial
representation to specify where in the full representation the
payload body is intended to be applied.
>>
New:
<<
The "Content-Range" header field is sent with a partial
representation to specify where in the full representation the
payload body is intended to be applied.
It MUST be ignored when present in responses with other response code than
206 Partial Content [3.1].
>>
--
Baroula que barouleras, au tiéu toujou t'entourneras.
~~Yves
Received on Tuesday, 26 July 2011 02:38:51 UTC