httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Alexei Kosut <>
Subject Re: MSIE + byteranges
Date Fri, 14 Feb 1997 12:42:31 GMT
On Thu, 13 Feb 1997, Roy T. Fielding wrote:


> 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.

Oh. *sigh*


> Please make it "MSIE 3".  I don't give a rat's ass if it breaks their 4beta.

Sure, that works.

> 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,

No, it doesn't really, because of all the Mozilla clones. I don't mind
sending Netscape 4 x-byteranges, even if it supports no-x. Doesn't
*hurt* anything.

> 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.


> 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),

I haven't checked the dates, but 2047 is referenced in HTTP/1.1 -
weren't 2045, 2045 and 2047 all finished at the same 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.

Well, I didn't say I thought it was a *good* idea, just that it might
have happened that way.

Alexei Kosut <>      The Apache HTTP Server

View raw message