W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2013

p5: editorial suggestions

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2013 13:47:51 +1000
Message-Id: <5CCE9F20-70A3-4AA0-9ACB-733B3809C106@mnot.net>
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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:10 UTC