Received: by taz.hyperreal.com (8.8.4/V2.0) id QAA26495; Sun, 16 Feb 1997 16:55:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from plato.alameda-coe.k12.ca.us by taz.hyperreal.com (8.8.4/V2.0) with SMTP id QAA26484; Sun, 16 Feb 1997 16:55:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from pappilloma.wwebsvs.com by plato.alameda-coe.k12.ca.us with smtp (Smail3.1.29.1 #5) id m0vwHF2-000OZIC; Sun, 16 Feb 97 16:47 PST Received: from ace.nueva.pvt.k12.ca.us by pappilloma.wwebsvs.com (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA00652; Sun, 16 Feb 1997 15:52:57 -0800 Received: from localhost by ace.nueva.pvt.k12.ca.us with SMTP (1.37.109.20/15.5+ECS 3.3+HPL1.1) id AA093040912; Sun, 16 Feb 1997 16:55:12 -0800 Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 16:55:12 -0800 (PST) From: Alexei Kosut To: new-httpd@hyperreal.com Subject: Re: MSIE + byteranges In-Reply-To: <9702161627.aa21049@paris.ics.uci.edu> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: new-httpd-owner@apache.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: new-httpd@hyperreal.com On Sun, 16 Feb 1997, Roy T. Fielding wrote: > Yeah, I know why they do it, but so what? What is the likelihood that > they are Mozilla-compatible and yet don't accept multipart/x-byteranges > instead of multipart/byteranges? I find it far more likely that a > Mozilla-compatible user agent will suffer the same bugs as Netscape, > if for no other reason than the fact that they code based on > Navigator's input/output rather than reading the specs. This is obviously > the case for Microsoft, so I see no reason not to assume it for the rest > of the clones. Besides, it is more efficient to do only one table > lookup instead of two. Marginally. But the way Apache's designed, it does more table lookups than there are grains of sand in the Sahara. It's not terribly efficient in that manner. I daresay adding one more won't make one whit of difference. [...] > >Or, to put this another way: are you vetoing the patch I introduced > >earlier (which takes out the quotes, adds a check for MSIE, but leaves > >the Netscape-check as is, with Request-Range) assuming I change it to > >"MSIE 3", or are you just complaining about it? > > Just seeking improvements (i.e., complaining). I am not shy about > using a veto when I think it is warranted, but it isn't in this case. > I support the other aspects of the fix. Well, I'm not convinced you're right... but I'm not sure you aren't. Does anyone else have an opinion? There are enough +1 votes to commit the patch; i.e. checking Request-Range for Netscape, looking at User-Agent with MSIE 3 for Internet Explorer, but I'm wary about doing so if there isn't consensus that it's the right solution. -- ________________________________________________________________________ Alexei Kosut The Apache HTTP Server URL: http://www.nueva.pvt.k12.ca.us/~akosut/ http://www.apache.org/