On 8/24/2011 11:42 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: > > On Aug 24, 2011, at 12:22 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote: > >> 0-, 40-50 becomes 0- > >> 0-499, 400-599 becomes 0-599 > >> 1000-1075, 200-250, 1051-1100 becomes 1000-1100, 200-250 > > This goes against Roy's recommendation to 416 overlaps… But > I do see that an overlap is specifically noted in an example
And... 416 is not identified for this specific purpose, we would need to go with 400 or fall back on the 200 full-content solution. > Until we are *clear* on what we should be doing, spec-wise, I > think it's unwise to make assumptions… > > From the above, I would be more comfortable with > > 0-, 40-50 ---> 0- > 0-499, 400-599 ---> 0-599 > 1000-1075, 1025-1088, 200-250, 1051-1100 --> 1000-1088, 200-250, 1051-1100 > > that it, merge as we can, but never resort... We should adamantly refuse to serve bytes 1051-1088 twice, no matter which scheme we use.
