brian 98/05/05 21:46:28
Modified: . STATUS
Log:
I have examined the mail archives extensively on this issue. It's apparent
that apache'c current behavior regarding range-requests for ranges that go
beyond the length of the current object is correct. See
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
where Roy says:
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.
So, you all can now sleep at night.
Revision Changes Path
1.377 +0 -10 apache-1.3/STATUS
Index: STATUS
===================================================================
RCS file: /export/home/cvs/apache-1.3/STATUS,v
retrieving revision 1.376
retrieving revision 1.377
diff -u -r1.376 -r1.377
--- STATUS 1998/05/06 00:23:56 1.376
+++ STATUS 1998/05/06 04:46:27 1.377
@@ -167,16 +167,6 @@
appropriate environment. Marc and Alexei don't see any
big deal. Martin says that not every "env" has a -u flag.
- * 206 vs. 200 issue on Content-Length
- See <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
- Roy says sending 200 is correct, but Alexei disagrees.
- Marc sides with Alexei. We were talking about two different PRs.
- Apache should be sending 200 *and* Accept-Ranges.
-
- Dean says: I'm still really confused as to what the problem is or
- isn't. If one of you three could work up a patch that would be
- most excellent.
-
* Marc's socket options like source routing (kill them?)
Marc, Martin say Yes
