- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 14:42:23 +1000
- To: "Julian F. Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: Craig Pratt <craig@ecaspia.com>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On 12 May 2016, at 2:35 PM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote: > > 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. We've seen evidence that some implementations have been hard-wired to assume "bytes." It's not clear how widespread this is. Cheers, -- Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/
Received on Thursday, 12 May 2016 04:42:53 UTC