- From: Raphaël Troncy <raphael.troncy@eurecom.fr>
- Date: Tue, 06 Apr 2010 09:17:34 +0200
- To: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
- CC: Media Fragment <public-media-fragment@w3.org>
Hi Silvia, > Sorry about tonight - I exceptionally had to have a cinema night with > my son, so couldn't make it, but forgot to let you know beforehand. > Sending out the meeting notice only a few hours before the meeting > actually didn't help planning it either. Indeed, I will try to make sure that agenda is sent at least 24 hours before the telecon, which means now for tomorrow's telecon :-) > Anyway - I am still curious with Yves' objection to the > Range-Equivalent header. I have not understood why we cannot use it in > the reply. It is not being used in the request, so there should be no > issue, IMO. But I have yet to hear and understand the reasons. The issue, as far as I understood it, is that a 206 Partial Content HTTP response cannot contain custom headers, i.e. must have a Content-Range header but cannot have a Range-Equivalent (or whatever) new header. Therefore, the equivalence between bytes and a custom unit must be represented into the Content-Range header and not through a new header. At least, this is how I understand the issue. Yves, could you point us towards some text or grammar that states this? Cheers. Raphaël -- Raphaël Troncy EURECOM, Multimedia Communications Department 2229, route des Crêtes, 06560 Sophia Antipolis, France. e-mail: raphael.troncy@eurecom.fr & raphael.troncy@gmail.com Tel: +33 (0)4 - 9300 8242 Fax: +33 (0)4 - 9000 8200 Web: http://www.eurecom.fr/~troncy/
Received on Tuesday, 6 April 2010 07:30:25 UTC