W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2022

Re: Draft for Resumable Uploads

From: Eric J Bowman <mellowmutt@zoho.com>
Date: Mon, 04 Apr 2022 23:28:21 -0700
To: "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: "Guoye Zhang" <guoye_zhang@apple.com>, "ietf-http-wg" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <17ff868f14e.d111a4c016833.788757655885004970@zoho.com>
---- On Mon, 04 Apr 2022 23:09:32 -0700 Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote ----



Am 05.04.2022 um 08:05 schrieb Eric J Bowman: 
>  > 
>  > First, how does it uniquely identify a resumable upload? 
>  > 
> 
> A 206 response to a non-range request uniquely, unambiguously, and 
> elegantly identifies an incomplete resource. Identifying a resource as 
> both incomplete *and* completeable, introduces tight coupling at the 
> protocol layer. 
> ... 
 
It's an interesting idea; but we would need to modify the core specs for 
that (right now it's only defined for responses to range requests). 
 
Best regards, Julian


 -------------------------------------



Exploring the undefined aspects of HTTP to flesh out the core specs, is preferable to me over adding to or even extending HTTP. Y'all never told me *not* to respond 206 on a non-range request. Implementations just don't care about 206 being undefined for this; they just "fall back to 200". As they should. Nothing breaks.



-Eric
Received on Tuesday, 5 April 2022 06:28:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 5 April 2022 06:28:40 UTC