W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg-old@w3.org > January to April 1996

Re: Issue List: CACHEDATE

From: Carlos Horowicz <carlos@patora.mrec.ar>
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 1996 13:02:19 -0300 (ARG)
Message-Id: <199602141602.QAA19996@patora.mrec.ar>
To: Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com>
Cc: fjh@cs.vu.nl, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
> > I can contribute an application which causes I-M-S dates differing from
> > the original modification time. Assume that documents are created on the
> > fly by a server/CGI script using multiple other documents or some
> > external data. The overall modification time is computed as the latest
> > modification time of all parts.
> > If the browser uses this modification time for an I-M-S request and if
> > one of the document's parts is fetched using a proxy mechanism the
> > original modification time of this part is no longer available. Thus,
> > the I-M-S time used in requesting this part may be later than the
> > modification time for this part and, refering to the example above, the
> > server should return 304, because this part has not changed.
> I'm confused by your example. If the parts are not modified, then they
> have the same date as they had the first time. If they ARE modified,
> then they have a different date. If you can't tell whether the parts
> are modified, then you can't tell the modification time.

If the doc's are created through cgi scripts, does it make sense to cache
them ? 

Carlos Horowicz
Ministry of Foreign Affairs - ARNET
Buenos Aires, Argentina
Received on Wednesday, 14 February 1996 08:01:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:40:16 UTC