- From: Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2010 10:47:19 -0500 (EST)
- To: Raphaël Troncy <raphael.troncy@eurecom.fr>
- cc: Conrad Parker <conrad@metadecks.org>, Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>, Media Fragment <public-media-fragment@w3.org>
On Thu, 4 Mar 2010, Raphaël Troncy wrote:
>> 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
>
> My understanding was: this is invalid since we cannot have multiple
> Content-Range headers in a response. Now, you just verbatim in another email
> a paragraph from RFC2616 (Section 4.2 Message Headers) that seems to say that
> this is *valid*. So I'm now confused.
> Yves, could you please provide us a pointer that reference your original
> claim?
Section 4.2 says that it is allowed only if the syntax of the headers
allows it, however:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-p5-range-08#section-5.2
<<
Unlike byte-ranges-specifier values (see Section 5.4.1), a byte-
range-resp-spec MUST only specify one range, and MUST contain
absolute byte positions for both the first and last byte of the
range.
>>
Plus the grammar does not allow comma separated lists.
--
Baroula que barouleras, au tiéu toujou t'entourneras.
~~Yves
Received on Friday, 5 March 2010 15:47:23 UTC