[annodex-dev] X-Accept-TimeURI

[illiminable]

Also one thing i didn't mention is that other servers can and do just ignore 
the t= part

eg try this http://www.illiminable.com/cw3.ogg?t=5

And as such it may appear to succeed, even when it doesn't.

It will just ignore the fragment and appear as though it worked. HOw is the 
client to know whether it's offset was actually honoured or ignored without 
the header flag ?

Zen.
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Conrad Parker" <conrad at metadecks.org>
To: <annodex-dev at lists.annodex.net>
Sent: Sunday, January 30, 2005 3:24 PM
Subject: [annodex-dev] X-Accept-TimeURI


> Hi,
>
> Last week we came up with an "X-Accept-TimeURI" HTTP response header.
>
> The behaviour of this (the only behaviour that makes sense with HTTP) is
> that a server may include this header in its response to a URL request
> to indicate that the timed URI mechanism is allowed for the requested
> resource.
>
> For example, if the response for:
>
>  http://media.company.com/blah.anx
>
> includes the header:
>
>  X-Accept-TimeURI: application/x-annodex, text/x-cmml
>
> then the client can expect that requesting
>
>  http://media.company.com/foo.anx?t=00:00:47
>
> will work (ie. won't 404).
>
> However, unfortunately that mechanism doesn't tell you about any other
> resources; eg. after that response, you still have no idea if:
>
>  http://media.company.com/bar.anx?t=00:00:23
>
> is going to work, as it may be handled by a completely different
> mechanism server side.
>
> Now, I'm starting to think the X-Accept-TimeURI header isn't such a good
> idea after all. The main problem is that it's not a reliable negative
> indicator, ie. if you ask for:
>
>  http://media.company.com/baz.anx
>
> and the response _doesn't_ contain the magic X-Accept-TimeURI header, is
> it really a good idea to assume that timed URIs _don't_ work?
>
> However, a foolproof indicator is to simply try the request, eg:
>
>  http://media.company.com/baz.anx?t=00:00:00
>
> which requires no new headers, and is no extra work if done using an
> existing persistent HTTP/1.1 connection.
>
> Of course, the other option is to mandate that a server MUST include the
> X-Accept-TimeURI header, and that a client MUST check for it before
> trying time offsets -- if either the client or the server were allowed to
> ignore this header, then different combinations of clients and servers
> would work / not work. It just adds a magic incantation all around, which
> is sure to complicate things.
>
> Hence, I suggest we drop use of this header and simply suggest that, if
> a client wishes to test the ability to do time offsets, it actually
> requests a time URI (and perhaps suggest an offset of 0 as a means of
> checking that).
>
> Conrad.
>
> _______________________________________________
> annodex-dev mailing list
> annodex-dev at lists.annodex.net
> http://lists.annodex.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/annodex-dev
>
>
>