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

Re: Link Verification

From: Richard Connamacher <phantom@baymoo.sfsu.edu>
Date: Tue, 7 May 1996 16:44:30 -0700
Message-Id: <v01540b01adb67ee5bb6a@[]>
To: Joseph Arceneaux <jla@arceneaux.com>, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/450
At 3:47 PM 5/7/96, Joseph Arceneaux wrote:
>I'm addressing this group as a last resort;  I've not seen this
>addressed anyplace.
>My problem is that I have a database of HTTP links, and I would like
>to batch-check them to see if they remain valid or have changed in
>some significant way.

I believe the way to do that is to use the HEAD method in your request, so
that the request line will read "HEAD /folder/page.html HTTP/1.1".  The
response will be all the headers that it would normally send before that
document in a GET response, but no document.  This is the standard method
for verifying links or checking if a document has changed without actually
getting that document.

I personally am having trouble implimenting the HEAD method, even though
the HTTP 1.1 specs, which I am trying to follow, require it.  The problem
is that my server is designed to generate pages on the fly, and each page,
in all likelyhood, will be different every time the client retrieves it.
Some pages actually carry out an action, such as move your virtual persona
into a new confrencing area, although sensitive actions would be reserved
for POST requests.  What would be the standard response in this case?
Right now, it only responds with 501 Not Implimented.


Version: 2.6.2

Received on Tuesday, 7 May 1996 16:50:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:40:17 UTC