- From: Eric J. Bowman <eric@bisonsystems.net>
- Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2014 02:59:36 -0600
- To: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>
- Cc: Matthew Kerwin <matthew@kerwin.net.au>, Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Roberto Peon wrote: > > I wouldn't mind fixing range-requests, but I don't believe that range > requests make a whole lot of sense for dynamic objects anyway. > I'm more than happy to have my ignorance corrected :) > Some large dynamic objects persist long enough between changes for range requests to be a big win, particularly for clients with intermittent connectivity, particularly when compression is possible. I'm not at liberty to discuss a project I was consulting architect on, which wasn't as big as IAEA anyway so I'm sure it also pales in comparison to the Web-browsing use case generally deferred to here. But, the most painful bit of code I've ever written implemented T-E compression of range requests. As Helge Hess mentioned elsewhere, I don't get how to manage the Etag if T-E is gone and conneg is in play. Which it is, if the large dynamic object is C-E compressed text because the user-agent won't display *.html.gz served as application/gzip and no support exists for displaying this served as application/html+gzip, which would be the "right way" to do things IMO. Resources having representations is a fact of life even if T-E is removed and gzip mandated. Even if I didn't have personal experience with this, I would extend the benefit of the doubt to the IAEA guys (as I don't know the specifics of their use-case) before declaring it nonsensical... some of us have found applications for range requests which don't begin to resemble pre-compressed image or video content. -Eric
Received on Tuesday, 15 April 2014 08:59:58 UTC