- From: Zhong Yu <zhong.j.yu@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2014 11:21:48 -0500
- To: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 10:39 AM, Zhong Yu <zhong.j.yu@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Also, multipart/byteranges may carry a gzip-ed range, though
>> multipart/byteranges is probably not well supported.
>
> I take it back
A little elaboration on the topic:
If a response looks like this
HTTP/1.1 206 Partial Content
Content-Type: multipart/byteranges,
Content-Encoding: gzip
What does it mean exactly? Per "normal" interpretation, "gzip" is
applied on the multipart. This interpretation seems plausible for a
reader of RFC2616. And it would be quite understandable if an
implementation decompress the response body first, then interpret it
as a multipart.
The new bis draft makes it clearer that "gzip" is applied on the
representation and "multipart" is applied on the payload, therefore
the above interpretation is wrong. If a response is 206 and the
Content-Type is multipart/byteranges, the "normal" interpretation does
not apply. Because "Content-Type: multipart/byteranges" is abused for
this special case, the multipart/byteranges mime type must never be
used in any other situations.
Zhong Yu
Received on Wednesday, 26 March 2014 16:22:15 UTC