Re: Comments on Byte range draft
Lou Montulli (montulli@mozilla.com)
Mon, 13 Nov 1995 15:49:00 -0800
Shel Kaphan wrote:
>
> Lou Montulli writes:
> ...
> An If-modified-since
> > request can guarantee that the object hasn't changed. From
> > there it's just a simple matter of requesting the parts that
> > are missing.
> >
>
> That makes this into a two-round-trip protocol to receive just
> a part of the object (GET if-modified-since, 304, GET byte-range)
> unless you want to change the semantics of GET if-modified-since,
> which seems like barking up the wrong tree. (What would it be?
> GET if-modified-since unless there's a byte-range in the URL, in which
> case, instead of returning the 304, return the byte-range??? Yuck!)
> Orthogonality! Orthogonality!!!
I agree, a better solution would be nice. I'm flexible, if
we can get most people to agree on a header solution that
also includes one trip if-modified-since support I think
we would all be better off.
:lou
--
Lou Montulli http://www.netscape.com/people/montulli/
Netscape Communications Corp.