- From: Jeffrey Mogul <mogul@pa.dec.com>
- Date: Tue, 15 Oct 96 15:20:46 MDT
- To: Ari Luotonen <luotonen@netscape.com>, http-wg mailing list <http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
> I have been brought up the issue of the date string used in the > If-modified-since header. Current practice is to use the > Last-modified header, and given clock skew, it's also the only > foolproof way to do IMS requests. Could the wording in the spec be > changed to reflect that, and eliminate this source of data > incorrectness? Basically, change the semantics of "If-modified-since" > be "In-not-equal-last-modified". Although I think, if I-M-S were used *only* for cache validation, this might have been a better design that the one that we now have for I-M-S, it may not be the way that all existing clients expect the servers to behave. That's why I insisted that the entity-tag mechanism be entirely opaque, and I encourage Netscape to help the installed base move to a caching scheme based on entity-tags. And I basically agree with Roy that there may be other reasons to use I-M-S, other than strict cache comparisons. (As long as people are clear on why they are using I-M-S in this way!) However, as an "advice to implementors" kind of thing, I would suggest that an HTTP client ought to act as if the If-Modified-Since headers that it sends *for cache validation* are going to be interpreted as "If-Modification-date-does-not-match-exactly". In other words, an HTTP client ought to be careful to preserve all of the accuracy in the Last-Modified date, rather than (perhaps) playing games based on the official semantics of If-Modified-Since. This might also avoid certain potential problems related to time zone changes :-) -Jeff
Received on Tuesday, 15 October 1996 15:31:24 UTC