- From: Balint Nagy Endre <bne@bne.ind.eunet.hu>
- Date: Wed, 16 Aug 1995 07:56:03 +0200 (MET DST)
- To: Albert-Lunde@nwu.edu
- Cc: http wg discussion <http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Lou Montulli and Albert Lundle discussing the reload operation: [Albert] > > > If the user requests a "Reload" operation, they are asking for a > > > new copy of the resource from its origin. [Lou] > > We obviously have different opinions on what a "reload" should do. > > > > My interpretation of "reload" is to check everything on the page > > and retransfer any objects that have changed. > > This is a case where it doesn't pay to be too clever. > [Albert] > If everything works perfectly, there is seldom a reason for > people to use "reload". The two cases I use it are when I have > a document that looks like it was corrupted by a transmission > error or when I have outside information that a document *has* > changed (usually because I'm editing it.) > > In neither case do I want a local or remote cache be in the picture. I use Lynx, Netscape and sometimes Mosaic. All of them has a refresh function - e.g. screen refresh - I quesst, normally this shouldn't involve any http action, using local cached copy of the document. I just now realised, that the "Pragma: no-local-cache" proposed by John Franks can prevent this. <em> I dont want http actions to refresh my lynx screen when it's garbled by talkd or write! </em> The reload funtion, on contrary does start a http action, but which action it really does, I not investigated till now. My expectations to the "reload" function are: re-check the status of the document, and reflect changes in case it's changed. This should be done using HEAD method (HTTP/0.9 clients) or GET/If-Modified-Since (HTTP/1.x clients). If I am not satisfyed with the result - (I expected a new version, I'm sure that the document changed), I will request a reload again. In this case, a good client may issue a plain GET, if it knows, that is talking to the origin server directly, or a GET/no-cache if knows, that there is some intermediate proxy. While pragmas have effect only on intermediates (and I don't want changes in this), it's safe to add the no-cache pragma, when no-intermediate proxies are involved in the action. Can we agree on this approach? Andrew. (Endre Balint Nagy) <bne@bne.ind.eunet.hu>
Received on Tuesday, 15 August 1995 23:00:47 UTC