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

Re: Range Requests vs Content Codings

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2014 12:10:41 +0200
Message-ID: <53A165A1.3010708@gmx.de>
To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
CC: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 2014-06-18 11:11, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> In message <53A123AD.8090503@gmx.de>, Julian Reschke writes:
>> Intermediaries that fail for unknown range units are broken, no?
> No, they may simply know something about the origin you do not, and
> decide that delivering the full object is the way to satisfy the request.

That's not "failing".

>>> - What benefits does standardising a range-unit bring this use case (over just using application-specific semantics)?
>> That it would work with standard software such as httpd, static files,
>> and a new module?
> That will only happen if people need it enough to ask for it to be
> implemented.  Very few people tail gzip'ed logfiles.

I agree that gzipped logfiles aren't a very compelling use case.

Best regards, Julian
Received on Wednesday, 18 June 2014 10:11:14 UTC

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