4 ms·
Two things: 1. Isn't the Content-Range header for partial files (not sets of files). Since the spec seems to define it in terms of bytes, not arbitrary items.
by nness 13y ago
Two things:
1. Isn't the Content-Range header for partial files (not sets of files). Since the spec seems to define it in terms of bytes, not arbitrary items.
2. I'd imagine you couldn't bookmark or share URL's using this method.
- scarmig 13y agoThe RFC allows you to define an arbitrary unit for range. I agree that the submitter's use here is higher level than the range header is typically used for, but that's not the primary issue here.
- begriffs 13y agoAs scarmig pointed it, the spec allows custom range units. Downloading pieces of a big file seems to be to be essentially the same problem as downloading parts of a long list of items. Also, I'm imagining this header approach more for API calls than for bookmarkable user-facing pages. This way the data that comes back from the server can be a clean array of results without metadata. Feels like metadata is what HTTP headers are for.