- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 03:02:11 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=16998
Yang Sun <eric.sun@huawei.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |eric.sun@huawei.com
--- Comment #5 from Yang Sun <eric.sun@huawei.com> 2012-06-18 03:02:10 UTC ---
I am ok with the suggetion of length instead of end,
but I think it is more complex for compute start-end range using (start,length)
model.
In (start,end) model, I only need to make sure the next start will not
overlap with previous end, but in (start,length) model, we need 1 extra step,
to compute the end of previous end using start+length-1, then make sure the
current start does not overlap with it.
(In reply to comment #1)
> This is a welcome change, since it also means that the data doesn't have to
> reside on the ECMAScript heap, where out-of-memory can't be handled gracefully.
>
> Is end inclusive or exclusive? The HTTP Ranges header has start and end
> inclusive, which is something I've seen mistakes with in test cases at Opera.
> I'd suggest using an unsigned length parameter instead of end, since that's
> less prone to mistakes.
--
Configure bugmail: https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Monday, 18 June 2012 03:02:13 UTC