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