Re: The problem of having multiple Content-Range headers in HTTP response

On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 1:14 PM, Conrad Parker <> wrote:
> On 4 March 2010 10:25, Silvia Pfeiffer <> wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 12:00 AM, Silvia Pfeiffer
>> <> wrote:
>>> 2010/3/3 RaphaŽl Troncy <>:
>>>> Another problem is how should we express that when 2 tracks have been
>>>> requested?
>>> The background here is that using a comma as in track=audio,subtitle
>>> will not work in the HTTP headers, since the comma is used to separate
>>> headers from each other. As such, something like:
>>> † †Content-Range: track audio,subtitle/653.791
>>> would be parsed to
>>> † †Content-Range: track audio
>>> † †Content-Range: subtitle/653.791
>>> which is obviously incorrect.
> why?
> the comma thing is not about "will be parsed to", but "is equivalent
> to". So, an application could add the two headers in order:
> Content-Range: track audio
> Content-Range: subtitle/653.791
> and this pair would be equivalent to, and could be merged by an
> intermediary proxy into,:
> Content-Range: track audio, subtitle/653.791
> So the comma thing is more about allowing the infrastructure to be
> more flexible (ie. different parts of an application stack can append
> headers without rewriting existing ones) while still being cacheable
> (the two header representations are equivalent).
> Conrad.

I am not even sure that comma thing actually works in this way.

BTW: what the above was supposed to mean was:
take tracks "audio" and "subtitle" - so the split out Content-Range
header doesn't really signify that any longer, right?

I may still completely misunderstand what this comma-thing is about.
That comment originally came from Yves, btw.


Received on Thursday, 4 March 2010 02:55:55 UTC