Re: Byte ranges -- formal spec proposal
Gavin Nicol (gtn@ebt.com)
Thu, 18 May 1995 10:47:37 -0400
>is required also to be honored. It is quite acceptable to return an
>"access denied" status for the second URL. Parameters like byterange
>while very useful in some applications are useless, meaningless, hard
>to serve, or even impossible to serve in other cases. We can all come
>up with our favorite example. When a byterange is requested in such
>an instance the server should simply refuse the request with an
>appropriate status code. If a server does not support byteranges
>(e.g. most current servers) and receives a request for one it will
>presumably send a "file does not exist" status code. This is fine.
I would much prefer to have a method, whereby I can send a
"Method not allowed" or "Not implemented" error. Also, by having a
method rather than a URL extension, we don't pollute URL namespace
with kibble from supporting "some" applications.