Re: Comments on Byte range draft
Benjamin Franz (snowhare@netimages.com)
Mon, 13 Nov 1995 19:37:34 -0800 (PST)
On Mon, 13 Nov 1995, Gavin Nicol wrote:
> >Benjamin Franz wrote:
> >
> >What are you talking about? One more time: BYTE RANGES
> >SHOULD REFER TO POSITIONING WITHIN THE BYTE STREAM BETWEEN THE SERVER
> >AND THE CLIENT NOT WITHIN THE SERVER'S OR CLIENT'S LOCAL REPRESENTATION OF
> >THAT STREAM. I have no idea how to make the statement any simpler. This
> >is not about *what* the data is - it is about *how* the data is transported.
>
> If byte ranges do not address an object on the server, or a part thereof
> (and part needs to be defined in that case), then they do not belong
> in the URL space.
>
> I have nothing against byte ranges, or partial transfers in general,
> but limiting oneself to byte ranges, and adding the syntax to the URL
> space, is not the way to do it.
I have no problem with that. My initial leaning towards putting it in the
URL for the sake of not breaking proxies was more than adequately handled by
the header proposal. I have a deep suspicion that this is a case of
violent agreement. I was concerned about partial caching (something I
think is *badly* needed) while you were concerned about the byte range
being part of the URL (something you are massively opposed to). We were
simply not talking about the same thing.
;-)
--
Benjamin Franz