On Aug 23, 2011, at 9:34 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote: > On Aug 23, 2011, at 2:34 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote: > >> On 8/23/2011 4:00 PM, Greg Ames wrote: >>> >>> On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 3:32 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote: >>> >>> I suggest we should be parsing and reassembling the list before we >>> start the bucket logic. >>> >>> I propose we satisfy range requests in the only sensible manner, returning >>> the ranges in sequence, >>> >>> yeah, overlapping ranges should be merged up front. That ought to >>> completely fix the issue. >> >> So the only remaining question; are we free to reorder them into sequence? > > And the spec says ... > > When a client requests multiple ranges in one request, the > server SHOULD return them in the order that they appeared in the > request. > > My suggestion is to reject any request with overlapping ranges
+1 > or more > than five ranges with a 416, and to send 200 for any request with 4-5 > ranges. There is simply no need to support random access in HTTP. -0
