Re: Byteranges with 206 partial content
John Franks (john@math.nwu.edu)
Mon, 13 Nov 1995 19:39:45 -0600 (CST)
According to Ari Luotonen:
>
>
> Based on the discussion during the past hours, it appears that a
> better way to do byte ranges is indeed via an additional header, and
> with a 206 partial content response code.
>
> Doing it via a header will still make it work through existing
> proxies, and 206 status code will prevent them from caching it, unless
> they understand what's going on.
>
I would agree with this.
> An additional feature is to say "give me a range if the document
> hasn't changed, but if it has, send me the entire document". Similar
> to If-modified-since, but still quite different... What would you
> call such a header?
>
"Unless-modified-since" (send the byte range)
John Franks