- From: Lou Montulli <montulli@mozilla.com>
- Date: Wed, 16 Aug 95 14:09:53 -0700
- To: hartill@lanl.gov
- Cc: montulli@mozilla.com, hartill@lanl.gov, fielding@beach.w3.org, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
In article <199508152149.AA062163389@ooo.lanl.gov> Rob Hartill <hartill@ooo.lanl.gov> wrote: > > > > "fix" is an interresting choice of words. "change" is more appropriate. > > Not sending an "if-modified-since" header with reloads would be extremely > > costly in terms of bandwidth. Adding cache checksums is a much better > > solution. > > no no no no no. Let the user *choose* to override the sending of > "if-modified-since". > > Which is the bigger bandwidth waste ... discarding 5Mb of disk cache > or not sending if i-m-s for a request the user has realised is cached > incorrectly ? > > We're not alking about having it as a default action, just an option > for users to refresh bad cache entries. > > Presumably the people sending you "bug" reports are doing so because > they see junk in their caches and can't get rid of it. Your users will > still have the same problem with URLs which don't have checksums, and > that's going to be the norm for a long time to come. Actually they are complaining about version skew because servers are making bad decisions about IMS dates. But, I do agree that having a non-IMS reload is a useful feature, so I'm currently adding one. :lou -- Lou Montulli http://www.mcom.com/people/montulli/ Netscape Communications Corp.
Received on Wednesday, 16 August 1995 14:11:27 UTC