Okay, guess that makes sense; personally I wouldn't mind having this dual usage but maybe it would make the W3 spec people throw a hissy fit.
Interesting attempt I must say but I think it will be hard to actually get it out there. Too much legacy stuff in the way.
It's a bit like how for a really long time a lot of fancy new VOIP protocols were really hindered by the lack of proper NAT support leading to all these horrible workarounds to do NAT hole punching or more RFC's like STUN and TURN.
"personally I wouldn't mind having this dual usage but maybe it would make the W3 spec people throw a hissy fit."
They would be right to do so. 206 implies that the request is done. It is a very fundamental difference for 206 to stop meaning that. One can not just gloss over the fact that one of the connection may very well have closed the TCP stream. That's not a theoretical objection, that's a very pragmatic one.
Interesting attempt I must say but I think it will be hard to actually get it out there. Too much legacy stuff in the way.
It's a bit like how for a really long time a lot of fancy new VOIP protocols were really hindered by the lack of proper NAT support leading to all these horrible workarounds to do NAT hole punching or more RFC's like STUN and TURN.