On Aug 24, 2011, at 3:34 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote: > 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. >
Why? If allowed by the spec, or, at least, not disallowed, then what is the rationale? After all, the client is expecting it after it gets bytes 200->250.
