httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Roy T. Fielding" <>
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 <>
>> 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.


View raw message