W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > January to March 2013

Re: WGLC p6 4.2.1

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2013 12:07:49 +1100
Cc: "Adrien W. de Croy" <adrien@qbik.com>, "IETF HTTP Working Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <B14B2EB2-4AB1-43C2-A69E-AC086D7998D0@mnot.net>
To: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>

On 20/03/2013, at 5:00 AM, Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com> wrote:

> On Mar 17, 2013, at 3:39 PM, Adrien W. de Croy wrote:
>> Hi all
>> I see there were some changes made to the 3rd bullet point in 4.2.1 about selection of representations to update with a 304.
>> The new text hints that dates other than those received in a previous Last-Modified can be used to generate a conditional request with If-Modified-Since. 
> Yes, because that has always been allowed, including within my
> original definition when I invented it in 1993.  IMS is used for
> both cache updates and restricted-window traversals (e.g., MOMspider).

Indeed; I've seen a widely-used browser doing it.


>> However, there are a number of side-effects with introducing this concept.
> It is not being introduced.  p6 was originally extracted to only talk
> about the use of IMS in caching, but it still needs to deal with all
> valid uses of IMS that were defined in RFC2616, RFC2068, and RFC1945.
> The recent changes in p6 just restores the prior definitions.
> This dual use of IMS has never been a problem in the past, though
> concerns about it was one of the main reasons for introducing etags
> as a replacement for validation.
> ....Roy

Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Wednesday, 20 March 2013 01:08:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:11:10 UTC