- From: Zhong Yu <zhong.j.yu@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2012 16:00:04 -0500
- To: "Adrien W. de Croy" <adrien@qbik.com>
- Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 2:58 PM, Adrien W. de Croy <adrien@qbik.com> wrote: > I've always considered multipart/byteranges to be less than optimal design > for the problem. > > A server should be able to send the byte ranges coalesced in a single > message body, since it advertised the ranges coming back it's possible to > unpick it, and doesn't then require the part separators etc. That doesn't work for other range units though (but does anyone actually use non-byte units?) I agree multipart sucks. It was probably designed for human eyes? It's hard for programming, both in generating and in parsing. > > that way you don't need to overload the Content-Type which then removes your > ability to transfer the actual content type (although presumably this has > been communicated earlier). > > Does anyone actually use multiple ranges? It doesn't seem necessary at all. The client can always send multiple requests, each for a single range; the overhead of multiple requests is probably inconsequential compared to the bytes of the body. > > > ------ Original Message ------ > From: "Zhong Yu" <zhong.j.yu@gmail.com> > To: "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de> > Cc: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> > Sent: 25/10/2012 4:52:03 a.m. > Subject: Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-p5-range-21, "3.2 416 Requested Range Not > Satisfiable" >> >> Wouldn't "Content-Type: multipart/byteranges" cause confusions if it's >> used anywhere other than in a 206 response? >> >> Suppose a representation itself has the content type of >> "multipart/byteranges" >> >> Get /slivers HTTP/1.1 >> >> >> HTTP/1.1 200 OK >> Content-Type: multipart/byteranges >> >> That's pretty confusing for observers. Even more confusingly >> >> Get/slivers HTTP/1.1 >> Range: bytes=0-499 >> >> >> HTTP/1.1 206 Partial Content >> Content-Type: multipart/byteranges >> Content-Range: bytes 0-499/1234 >> >> Maybe we should strongly discourage the use of multipart/byteranges in >> any application except in a HTTP 206 response. >> >> Zhong Yu >> >> >> >> On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 7:21 AM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> >> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-ietf-httpbis-p5-range-21.html#status.416>: >>> >>> "When this status code is returned for a byte-range request, the response >>> SHOULD include a Content-Range header field specifying the current length >>> of >>> the representation (see Section 5.2). This response MUST NOT use the >>> multipart/byteranges content-type. For example," >>> >>> What is this "MUST NOT" about? Are there clients that will ignore the >>> status >>> code and assume success if they see the expected content-type? >>> >>> Best regards, Julian >>> >>> >> >
Received on Wednesday, 24 October 2012 21:00:33 UTC