Re: Improving If-Modified-Since

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.