- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2013 13:47:51 +1000
- To: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
* 2.1 "A byte range operation MAY specify..." This is the only place "operation" is used in the document; it should either be defined, or replaced by another term. * 3.1 "...and only if the result of their evaluation is leading toward a 200 (OK) response." This is a bit informal... * 3.1 "If all of the preconditions are true, the server supports the Range header field for the target resource, and the specified range(s) are invalid or unsatisfiable, the server SHOULD send a 416 (Range Not Satisfiable) response." Yet 4.4 says: "because servers are free to ignore Range, many implementations will simply respond with 200 (OK) if the requested ranges are invalid or not satisfiable." I think sometimes responding with 200 is the right thing to do here sometimes, and so we shouldn't put a requirement against it. We could either remove the SHOULD, or qualify it with something that allows the server to make a judgement call. * 4.3 first paragraph re-defines what validator strength is; this should just be a reference to p4. * 4.3 last paragraph places a requirement on clients to "record" sets of ranges; how exactly do they meet this requirement? Terminology seems strange. -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Tuesday, 23 April 2013 03:48:14 UTC