On Aug 31, 2011, at 6:10 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote: > On 8/31/2011 6:06 PM, Stefan Fritsch wrote: >> On Wednesday 31 August 2011, Roy T. Fielding wrote: >>>> Author: sf >>>> Date: Wed Aug 31 21:37:38 2011 >>>> New Revision: 1163833 >>>> >>>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1163833&view=rev >>>> Log: >>>> Send a 206 response for a "Range: bytes=0-" request, even if 200 >>>> would be more efficient. >>> >>> 200 is a better response for caches as well. Why do we want to >>> support this? > > As explained to me by Stefan on irc... > >> There seems to be at least one streaming client that gets confused by >> this behaviour. >> >> But maybe my commit was premature. If the change does not actually fix >> the problem, I will revert. > > The presumption here is that the client requests bytes=0- to begin the > transmission, and provided it sees a 206, restarting somewhere in the > stream results in aborting the connection and streaming bytes=n- from > the restart point. Further testing should determine if this was the > broken assumption.
Do we send the Accept-Ranges header field? http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2616#page-105 ....Roy
