W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2014

Re: Range Requests vs Content Codings

From: Matthew Kerwin <matthew@kerwin.net.au>
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2014 08:24:18 +1000
Message-ID: <CACweHNAkXFo6E6kf4_rQVvj02YxRrukfTuCvOBVzoZfTsR+ufw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 18 June 2014 02:56, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:

> On 2014-06-17 15:15, Matthew Kerwin wrote:
>
>>
>> To my mind, this also opens up the idea of a 'bacc' range unit (bytes
>> after content-coding), as an explicit signal that the client only
>> wants the range if it's from the content-coded representation. AFAIU
>> currently it's a bit ambiguous what to do when a request has both A-E
>> and Range headers. Of course, 'bacc' requires there to be exactly one
>>
>
> The ambiguity is caused by the client sending a request that selects
> multiple representations. That's easy to avoid...
>
>
Oh, yeah, because "identity;q=0" is allowed. Apologies for posting late at
night.



>
>  coding in the Accept-Encoding header, but it could be useful for
>> resuming a content-coded download. The same caching issues as with
>> 'bbcc' still apply, though.
>>
>
> Best regards, Julian
>
>


-- 
  Matthew Kerwin
  http://matthew.kerwin.net.au/
Received on Tuesday, 17 June 2014 22:24:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:31 UTC