Re: DATE-IF-MODIFIED

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: John Franks: "Re: 301/302"
• Previous message: Ben Laurie: "Re: 301/302"
• Maybe in reply to: Jim Gettys: "DATE-IF-MODIFIED"
• Next in thread: Ross Patterson: "Re: DATE-IF-MODIFIED"

Jim Gettys wrote:
> 
> To close out this issue
> (http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/Issues/#DATE_IF_MODIFIED), I suggest the
> following note to be added to section 14.24 If-Modified-Since"
> 
> "Note: An HTTP client should expect that If-Modified-Since headers sent
> for cache validation will be interpreted as
> 'If-Modification-date-does-not-match-exactly'. In other words, an HTTP client
> should preserve all of the accuracy in the Last-Modified date, rather than
> (perhaps) playing games based on the official semantics of If-Modified-Since."
> 
> Let me know if there are any complaints.

If cache loops exist, this would allow the possibility of a perpetually
cached stale copy. I don't know if this is a real-world concern, though.

Cheers,

Ben.

-- 
Ben Laurie            |Phone: +44 (181) 994 6435|Apache Group member
Freelance Consultant  |Fax:   +44 (181) 994 6472|http://www.apache.org
and Technical Director|Email: ben@algroup.co.uk |Apache-SSL author
A.L. Digital Ltd,     |http://www.algroup.co.uk/Apache-SSL
London, England.      |"Apache: TDG" http://www.ora.com/catalog/apache

• Next message: John Franks: "Re: 301/302"
• Previous message: Ben Laurie: "Re: 301/302"
• Maybe in reply to: Jim Gettys: "DATE-IF-MODIFIED"
• Next in thread: Ross Patterson: "Re: DATE-IF-MODIFIED"