- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 06:35:40 +0200
- To: Craig Pratt <craig@ecaspia.com>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On 2016-05-12 04:19, Craig Pratt wrote: > On 5/11/16 6:40 PM, Martin Thomson wrote: >> On 12 May 2016 at 10:59, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote: >>> 1. Changing the 'bytes' range-unit to allow this use case >>> 2. Minting a new range-unit >> I suggested a third option: work around the limitation. Was there a >> reason that isn't feasible? (There are probably many, but I saw none >> offered.) >> > I'm definitely OK with a third option. > > If no one thinks it's safe to define new Range Units, perhaps the > ... FTR: I remain unconvinced that new we can't define new range units. Yes, intermediaries will not know hot to handle them (and thus must fall back to returning the full resource=), but that doesn't have to always be a problem, in particular with https. Best regards, Julian
Received on Thursday, 12 May 2016 04:36:09 UTC