https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51748
Tomas Hoger <[email protected]> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |[email protected] --- Comment #2 from Tomas Hoger <[email protected]> 2011-09-13 12:52:07 UTC --- There is one special case here: -0 RFC does not define that case as syntactically invalid. My reading is that it's considered valid but unsatisfiable (If a syntactically valid byte-range-set includes ... at least one suffix-byte-range-spec with a non-zero suffix-length, then the byte-range-set is satisfiable.). The latest httpd behaviour is to handle that as invalid, hence ignore Range header and return 200. That's quite reasonable, given that -0 is not any better than invalid 10-9. Just noting here so it can be decided if it should stay as is or be changed to be more rfc-compliant. Required change seems trivial (allowing number >= 0). And maybe I'm just reading the RFC wrong. -- Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
