W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > January to March 2012

Re: Increasing precision of Last-Modified header to allow sub-second granularity?

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 22:47:16 +0100
Message-ID: <4F286164.3080001@gmx.de>
To: Adrien de Croy <adrien@qbik.com>
CC: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On 2012-01-31 22:41, Adrien de Croy wrote:
>
>
> On 1/02/2012 10:08 a.m., Julian Reschke wrote:
>> On 2012-01-31 19:31, David Booth wrote:
>>> Not sure where to ask this, but . . .
>>>
>>> Has there been any thought or discussion of allowing the Last-Modified
>>> header to (optionally) carry more precision that one second, for the
>>> benefit of clients that wish to reliably detect when a server has
>>> changed its output faster than once per second? For example:
>>>
>>> Last-Modified: Fri, 27 Jan 2012 20:21:10.011483 GMT
>>
>> I don't think this has been mentioned so far.
>>
>>> Note that it is possible to get around the current one-second limitation
>>> using ETags, but it would be nice if finer precision could be indicated
>>> directly in the Last-Modified header.
>>
>> Not sure what this buys you compared to an ETag?
>
> the ability to compare against other previous Last-Modified headers.
> That allows the client to know whether a version supercedes another,
> rather than having to defer to the server.
>
> I'd be in favour.

It might break recipients.

Anyway: please go ahead and add it to the Wiki so once we get there we 
have food for thought.

> It would have been nice if the definition for ETag could have allowed
> for comparison (required monotonic increase), such as a revision number.

Well, that would have made other cases harder (I've seen UUIDs used as 
ETags).
Received on Tuesday, 31 January 2012 21:47:59 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:54 GMT