- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 17:47:10 +0100
- To: Zhong Yu <zhong.j.yu@gmail.com>
- CC: Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On 2012-11-15 17:39, Zhong Yu wrote: > On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 4:30 AM, Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org> wrote: >> On Wed, 24 Oct 2012, Zhong Yu wrote: >> >>> 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. >> >> >> Note that you can't have Content-Range and Content-Type: >> multipart/byteranges in a 206 > > In my example, the request is for a single range, the selected > representation's own content type is multipart/byteranges. Then the > server has no choice but to respond like that. Exactly. We should remove all special-casing with respect to this. We could keep a warning that some clients might be confused by the presence of that type, though. > ... Best regards, Julian
Received on Thursday, 15 November 2012 16:47:39 UTC