On Monday 26 September 2011, Jim Jagielski wrote: > On Sep 26, 2011, at 12:20 PM, Plüm, Rüdiger, VF-Group wrote: > > I agree with you, but I am leaning towards to revert this > > behaviour, because there are too much "stupid" clients out > > there. So it looks like the "smarter" party has to give in :-). > > Sigh. > > Not when the stupid clients are also, from what I can tell, wrong… > > Just because some clients may be/are abusing the spec doesn't mean > we need to support it :)
But we are breaking quite a few popular clients here: VLC, everything based on lavf, firefox (the ogg media support). And httpd violates a SHOULD with the current form of RFC 2616 14.35.1: If a syntactically valid byte-range-set includes at least one byte- range-spec whose first-byte-pos is less than the current length of the entity-body, or at least one suffix-byte-range-spec with a non- zero suffix-length, then the byte-range-set is satisfiable. Otherwise, the byte-range-set is unsatisfiable. This means "0-" is satisfiable. If the byte-range-set is unsatisfiable, the server SHOULD return a response with a status of 416 (Requested range not satisfiable). Otherwise, the server SHOULD return a response with a status of 206 (Partial Content) containing the satisfiable ranges of the entity-body. In this case, I am strongly in favor of fixing the RFC first and changing httpd's behaviour only after that.
