W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-media-fragment@w3.org > April 2009

Re: Review of section 7

From: Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2009 09:51:10 -0400 (EDT)
To: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
cc: Conrad Parker <conrad@metadecks.org>, Media Fragment <public-media-fragment@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0904140949490.9113@ubzre.j3.bet>
On Tue, 14 Apr 2009, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote:

> On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 7:37 PM, Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org> wrote:
>> On Mon, 13 Apr 2009, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote:
>>> Then I think the User Agent should be encouraged (or even required) to
>>> only send the byte ranges, since they can be resolved without a
>>> further mapping effort on the server side.
>> Why? let's remove POST, as it requires processing on the server side :)
> After having read some of your replies, I think you're actually
> talking about a server sending two range replies, rather than a User
> Agent sending two range requests. I don't have an issue with that, as
> long as they don't contradict each other. If they contradict, I don't
> think a User Agent can clearly decide which is the truthful one and
> may need to assume that the server gave a broken reply...

Yes, the only issue I have with this noodling is how it will be parser by 
clients (that may be the client part of a proxy) that doesn't know about 
it, so I fear that it won't work (while it would have been a nice way to 
accomodate two requirements there ;) )

Baroula que barouleras, au tiéu toujou t'entourneras.

Received on Tuesday, 14 April 2009 13:51:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:27:42 UTC