Re: Other work items

On 14 June 2014 17:01, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:

> On 2014-06-13 23:50, Matthew Kerwin wrote:
>
>>
>> On 14 June 2014 05:00, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net
>> <mailto:mnot@mnot.net>> wrote:
>>
>>     On 12 Jun 2014, at 4:55 pm, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de
>>     <mailto:julian.reschke@gmx.de>> wrote:
>>
>>      > - addressing the C-E/Range Request issue
>>
>>     That needs a draft and a serious amount of discussion on-list first;
>>     two hours in a room in Toronto are not going to move it
>>     significantly forward if we don’t have those first.
>>
>>     Is anyone writing a draft here?
>>
>>
>> I'm thinking about it, but I'm not​​ sure what approach to take. I have
>> the start of a h2 extension-based
>> draft here, but that's only the tip of the iceberg.
>>
>
> As this is a HTTP/1.1 problem as well, the right solution IMHO is define a
> new range unit (bytes-before-content-coding).
>
>
Not really -- HTTP/1.1 has transfer encoding, which is applied after ranges
(it also has the advantage(?) of compressing the range metadata,
eliminating the cost of all those duplicate 'Content-Type' headers). A
before-content-coding range request doesn't really make sense, especially
if you're not applying C-E dynamically (assuming the server has an
unencoded representation handy, assuming that encoding the range is somehow
equivalent to encoding the whole, etc.).

I think the C-E/Range request issue is unique to HTTP/2, except that nobody
seems to have implemented T-E in HTTP/1.1.


      > - common header field syntax (JSON?)
>>
>>     This is VERY speculative (although I have thought about it too). I-D?
>>
>>
>> Or perhaps revisiting draft-snell-httpbis-bohe.
>>
>
> Again, this was about HTTP in general.
>
>
I see.  In that case, why not XML?  ;)


-- 
  Matthew Kerwin
  http://matthew.kerwin.net.au/