> >> >> 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. >> > > > Hm, no. > > If the client gets a 206 for incomplete content and falls back to 2xx > handling, it will assume the content is indeed complete. > > > Or am I missing something here? > Well, Julian, I think the likelihood that I've missed something here is way higher (I think my value to the WG at this point is fresh set of eyes, as HTTP no longer rules my daily existence as it once did, hope my experience means something when it comes to my limited participation despite reading 95% of posts), but yes I think you have. If the resource is "broken image file" then it's right and proper for the client to assume 200. Clients "in the know" about the uploading of that image will know better than to make that assumption, and aren't they the only clients that matter as far as interpreting the 206 differently than a 200? Because they're the ones which initiated the upload? -Eric
Received on Wednesday, 6 April 2022 02:59:13 UTC