Re: last-seen

• Mail folder: WWW Talk Jan 94-present
• Next message: Kevin Altis: "Re: If-Modified-Since and 304"
• Previous message: Larry Masinter: "last-seen"
• Maybe in reply to: Larry Masinter: "last-seen"
• Reply: Bert Bos: "Re: last-seen"

Errors-To: listmaster@www0.cern.ch
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 1994 20:13:50 --100
Message-id: <9403101907.AA03991@hotsand.dacsand>
Errors-To: listmaster@www0.cern.ch
Reply-To: ellson@hotsand.att.com
Originator: www-talk@info.cern.ch
Sender: www-talk@www0.cern.ch
Precedence: bulk
From: ellson@hotsand.att.com
To: Multiple recipients of list <www-talk@www0.cern.ch>
Subject: Re:  last-seen
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
Content-Length: 811

> a) If the server has a file with an EARLIER date, do you want that too?

No.

> b) is the date in GMT?

Don't care.

IMHO The date stamp that is sent back should be the exact string that was
in the "Last-modified" field when the document was first received
by the cache.  If the string is different in any way then the server
should assume that the receiving cache has the wrong document and re-serve it.

The receiving cache should not attempt to understand the
semantics of the "Last-modified" date.  It should be treated as a
tag provided by the server that the server can match against when it
is sent back in the "If-Modified-Since" field.

Since only the original server makes any semantic interpretation of
the string, it doesn't matter if the timestamp is GMT, or local.  

John Ellson
AT&T Bell Labs