W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg-old@w3.org > May to August 1995

Re: Improving If-Modified-Since

From: Lou Montulli <montulli@mozilla.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 95 14:09:53 -0700
Message-Id: <30325EA1.2F1C@mozilla.com>
To: hartill@lanl.gov
Cc: montulli@mozilla.com, hartill@lanl.gov, fielding@beach.w3.org, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
In article <199508152149.AA062163389@ooo.lanl.gov> Rob Hartill
<hartill@ooo.lanl.gov> wrote:
> 
> 
> > "fix" is an interresting choice of words.  "change" is more appropriate.
> > Not sending an "if-modified-since" header with reloads would be extremely
> > costly in terms of bandwidth.  Adding cache checksums is a much better
> > solution.
> 
> no no no no no. Let the user *choose* to override the sending of
> "if-modified-since".
> 
> Which is the bigger bandwidth waste ... discarding 5Mb of disk cache
> or not sending if i-m-s for a request the user has realised is cached
> incorrectly ?
> 
> We're not alking about having it as a default action, just an option
> for users to refresh bad cache entries.
> 
> Presumably the people sending you "bug" reports are doing so because
> they see junk in their caches and can't get rid of it. Your users will
> still have the same problem with URLs which don't have checksums, and
> that's going to be the norm for a long time to come.

Actually they are complaining about version skew because servers are
making bad decisions about IMS dates.

But, I do agree that having a non-IMS reload is a useful feature, so
I'm currently adding one.

:lou
-- 
Lou Montulli                 http://www.mcom.com/people/montulli/
       Netscape Communications Corp.
Received on Wednesday, 16 August 1995 14:11:27 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 24 September 2003 06:31:25 EDT