- From: Orion Adrian <orion.adrian@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 12:53:43 -0400
- To: www-html@w3.org
> > Many of these could be addressed by more sophisticated use of > > caching control parameters and by having server side include and > > more general CGI processing synthesize a Last-Modified-Date based on > > the real content, > > And even that doesn't really do the trick. > > I maintain my web page in CVS, so I use $Date$ keywords as a cheap and > easy way to build 'Last Modified'. But I modify pages all the time to > fix up spelling and grammar mistakes, or clarify labyrinthine > sentences. If I didn't make use of templating and cross-includes, I'd > be modifying every page every time I made a change to the site > look&feel or some of the common code. > > All of these would be changing the 'Last Modified', whether by > filesystem mtime or the revision $Date$. But none of them say > anything about whether I checked that the content was up to date. > There's no way an automated system can know whether I checked or > updated something like that, so it can hardly be anything HTML (or > HTTP, or some server-side programming language for that matter) can > address. Why couldn't a system be put into place in HTML that would allow things like this to be tracked? I have documents and XML files that specify when things were modified and that usually means non-errata. So I don't change the modified date when I make a spelling change or fix up a sentence (I often have labyrinthine sentences myself), but it would allow one to specify when something was added, removed or substantively changed. I would posit that any additional or removal of a section is substantive. -- Orion Adrian
Received on Wednesday, 12 October 2005 21:48:00 UTC