httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Roy T. Fielding" <field...@kiwi.ics.uci.edu>
Subject Re: [STATUS] 1.3b4-dev Sat Nov 22 18:26:26 EST 1997
Date Mon, 24 Nov 1997 06:23:01 GMT
>> >    * 206 vs. 200 issue on Content-Length
>> >	See <Pine.BSF.3.95q.971102000930.5555B-100000@valis.worldgate.com>
>> 
>> The current behavior is correct.  A range which extends beyond the actual
>> length of the entity is possible in cases where a device is attempting
>> to limit the response size (think PDA) even when it doesn't yet know
>> the actual length.  At least, that was the goal.
>
>But that's not the behavior in question. What you're talking about is
>"Range: bytes=0-16384", which sends a 206 and 16k if the entity is larger,
>and a 200 if it's smaller. Apache does that (at least, it should).
>
>What the PR is about is "Range: bytes=0-"; which in the PR submitter's
>opinion, and mine, should send a 206, but Apache currently sends a 200.
>Note that Apache will do the same thing if one has a file of 4498 bytes in
>length, and does a "Range: bytes=0-4497". It's a matter of "<" vs. "<=".

I think we are talking about two different issues -- the one above
predates the PR you are talking about.

I don't really care which way we respond to a range of "0-".
Yes, it is a valid range, but the response is not "partial" either.
The application is clearly bogus in this case, since the Accept-Ranges
is what indicates the ability to restart, and this stupid hack will
interfere with caches.  In other words, I'm in no hurry to "fix" it.

....Roy

Mime
View raw message