httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Jason S. Clary" <jcl...@futurefx.com>
Subject Re: MSIE + byteranges
Date Fri, 14 Feb 1997 17:39:57 GMT
erm.. why not just check every mime content type for [0]='x' [1]='-'
and strip
it off.. since these idiots intend to continue being idiots it would
save
some energy by just removing the x- to begin with before doing any
negotiation.
I wouldn't modify it.. I'd just compare against &[2] so that SSI and
CGI get
them the way the browser sent them.

Wouldn't that fix alot of the worry over the existence, or
non-existence, of x- headers?
how long (cpu wise) does it take to check equivalency of 2 bytes,
anyways? ;P

----------
> From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@kiwi.ICS.UCI.EDU>
> To: new-httpd@hyperreal.com
> Subject: Re: MSIE + byteranges 
> Date: Thursday, February 13, 1997 11:41 PM
> 
> >Basically, what I realized is regarding the HTTP/1.1 specification:
> >Namely, that it's 161 pages long, and contains a *lot* of
> >information. Microsoft claims to be compliant with standards, and
> >their byterange implementation is not compatible with HTTP/1.1's,
but
> >I had an insight that it is actually standards-compliant: the
> >later Luotenen/Franks byterange drafts, which were very similar to
> >what ended up in HTTP/1.1, except that they used x- where HTTP/1.1
> >does not, were IDs of the HTTP-WG, and were intended to be included
in
> >a standards-track document. Although you are not "supposed" to code
> >from an ID (except for experimental purporses), the reality is that
> >people do - the Apache Group has, a number of times.
> 
> I might think that too if it wasn't for the fact that I told both
> Netscape and Microsoft developers/managers, in person and several
> times on mailing lists, that using an "x-" prefix for anything other
> than a not-intended-to-ever-be-a-standard experiment is stupid.
> Their developers knew that the standard would have to be
> multipart/byteranges; I talked to Ari Luotonen, Lou Montulli, Paul
Leach
> (the MS guy at IETF), and Steven Zilles (the Adobe guy promoting
> byteranges) long before their respective products were deployed.
> 
> If the issue was just one of following a changing standard, I'd tell
> them all to go cook their heads.
> 
> >In this light, I've decided I'm amenable to adding in a User-Agent
> >check for MSIE (at least that doesn't catch any "clones", since
there
> >are none - which is the main problem with looking for Mozilla) into
> >the byterange code, and sending multipart/x-byteranges to anything
> >with the "MSIE" substring.
> 
> Please make it "MSIE 3".  I don't give a rat's ass if it breaks their
4beta.
> Likewise, since you are now looking at the user agent anyway, it
would
> make more sense to look for "Mozilla/[23]" instead of Range-Request,
> seeing as how Netscape may send it even after they fix the x-bug.
> Ummm, and since that would cover MSIE as well, you can just test that
> and not "MSIE" at all.
> 
> >Also, as I said before, I'd like to ditch the quotes from the
boundary
> >string in the Content-Type header.
> 
> That's okay.  You might want to add a comment where the boundary is
> generated that it must be all token characters for this reason.
> 
> BTW, coding according to an example in the HTTP spec is no excuse.
> If they haven't read the MIME spec (which was 1521 at that time),
> then they can't do diddly with multiparts.  The problem was that they
> didn't read anything at all -- they just hacked until it seemed to
> work right on their own servers.
> 
> .....Roy

Mime
View raw message