Shel Kaphan wrote: > > Lou Montulli writes: > ... > An If-modified-since > > request can guarantee that the object hasn't changed. From > > there it's just a simple matter of requesting the parts that > > are missing. > > > > That makes this into a two-round-trip protocol to receive just > a part of the object (GET if-modified-since, 304, GET byte-range) > unless you want to change the semantics of GET if-modified-since, > which seems like barking up the wrong tree. (What would it be? > GET if-modified-since unless there's a byte-range in the URL, in which > case, instead of returning the 304, return the byte-range??? Yuck!) > Orthogonality! Orthogonality!!! I agree, a better solution would be nice. I'm flexible, if we can get most people to agree on a header solution that also includes one trip if-modified-since support I think we would all be better off. :lou -- Lou Montulli http://www.netscape.com/people/montulli/ Netscape Communications Corp.Received on Monday, 13 November 1995 15:56:34 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 2 February 2023 18:42:56 UTC