- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 16:56:43 +0100
- To: Zhong Yu <zhong.j.yu@gmail.com>
- CC: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On 2013-01-24 16:51, Zhong Yu wrote: > Either a Content-Range ... or a multipart/byteranges Content-Type > > This does not clearly define a precedence; maybe we should clarify > what if both exist. > > And other conflicting texts: > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-p5-range-21#section-4.1 Stop looking at draft 21; it's seriously outdated. -> <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/wiki> > A response to a request for a single range MUST NOT be sent using the > multipart/byteranges media type. > > This forbids your 2nd example, a single range 206 response with a > multipart/bytereanges content type. That text is gone already. > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-p5-range-21#appendix-A > > When an HTTP 206 (Partial Content) response message includes the > content of multiple ranges (a response to a request for multiple non- > overlapping ranges), these are transmitted as a multipart message > body ([RFC2046], Section 5.1). The media type for this purpose is > called "multipart/byteranges". The following is to be registered > with IANA [RFC4288]. > > This apparently limits the use of multipart/byteranges specifically > for http 206 responses. > > Zhong Yu > ... Best regards, Julian
Received on Thursday, 24 January 2013 15:57:18 UTC