- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2012 23:04:33 +0200
- To: Zhong Yu <zhong.j.yu@gmail.com>
- CC: "Adrien W. de Croy" <adrien@qbik.com>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 2012-10-24 23:00, Zhong Yu wrote: > 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. Well, we know that it *is* used. Best regards, Julian
Received on Wednesday, 24 October 2012 21:05:14 UTC