On 24 Aug 2011, at 17:47, Stefan Fritsch wrote: On Wednesday 24 August 2011, Jim Jagielski wrote: >> On Aug 24, 2011, at 12:05 PM, Plüm, Rüdiger, VF-Group wrote: >>> >>> But merging might require sorting... >> >> then we don't do that merge, imo… In other words, we progress thru the set >> of ranges and once a range is merged as far as it can be (due to the next >> range not being merge-able with the previous one), we let it go... > > We could also use a two stage approach: Up to some limit (e.g. 50) ranges, we > return them as the client requested them. Over that limit, we violate the > RFC-SHOULD and sort and merge them.
Another option is just to return 200. Servers MAY ignore the Range header. I prefer this because existing clients already handle that case well, and there's no opportunity for a client to exploit this (“malicious” clients that want the whole entity need only request it). Can anyone see why returning 200 for these complex requests (by ignoring Range / If-Range) is a bad idea? -- Tim Bannister – is...@jellybaby.net
