469,270 Members | 1,117 Online
Bytes | Developer Community
New Post

Home Posts Topics Members FAQ

Post your question to a community of 469,270 developers. It's quick & easy.

if-modified-since question (protocol problem?)

hug
[originally posted in alt.www.webmaster, was suggested that this ng
could be a better place.]

I've updated my test server to handle if-modified-since. I've noticed
that the (old copies I run of) IE and Netscape seem never to send
if-modified-since. But the strange thing is that Opera sends
if-modified-since but when I reply with "HTTP/1.0 304 Not Modified" it
is not refreshing the screen from its cache, it is leaving the screen
blank.

I can only conclude that either I am not returning a correct protocol
sequence including "HTTP/1.0 304 Not Modified", or that the old Opera
I'm running contains a bug. I'm betting on the incorrect response in
my code.

Anybody have experience with handling if-modified-since themselves and
doing it properly?

--
http://www.ren-prod-inc.com/hug_soft...action=contact
May 7 '06
102 6139
On 13/05/2006 18:54, VK wrote:

[snip]
Also I want to discover the mistery of Content-Type:
application/xhtml+xml treated completely different by your machine and
by mine: as no amount of common sense seems able to help here :-)
Looking at

<http://mwinter.webhop.info/xhtml-test/test.xhtml>

you should find it served as application/xhtml+xml and, predictably,
loading it in MSIE 6 SP2 (IE) will prompt to download (I make no claim
at this point for other versions or service packs). The file at

<http://mwinter.webhop.info/xhtml-test/test.xml>

is identical in all but file name, and served with the same MIME type.
Here, IE will display the content as a source tree.

Unfortunately, the last test file at

<http://mwinter.webhop.info/xhtml-test/test.html>

cannot be used as a demonstration on that server as Zeus is too simple
and refuses to override the MIME type. However, if it did work as it
should, despite the same 'unknown' media type, IE will render the
document as HTML.

There is an archive of the directory contents at

<http://mwinter.webhop.info/xhtml-test/xhtml-test.zip> (1.3KB)

containing a .htaccess file to force the application/xhtml+xml content
type and the three identical files above.
I have a hypothesis (nothing but hypothesis yet) of a common reason
for all discrepancies: because of intermediary HTTP proxies.


Even if that were the case, it wouldn't account for the behaviour I
observe: my test server runs as a local service.

[MLW:]
As I stated previously, your 'test' doesn't send any freshness
information, therefore Opera reverts to the 'Check ...' options to
determine whether to revalidate a cached resource.


It is not totally correct. My "test" sends Date and Expires headers
both set to the time of request in RFC1123 format.


One of them does, but the one you cited doesn't. :-)

[snip]

Mike

--
Michael Winter
Prefix subject with [News] before replying by e-mail.
May 14 '06 #101
On 14/05/2006 12:48, Michael Winter wrote:

[snip]
There is an archive of the directory contents at

<http://mwinter.webhop.info/xhtml-test/xhtml-test.zip> (1.3KB)

containing a .htaccess file to force the application/xhtml+xml
content type and the three identical files above.


It dawned on me - too late, admittedly - that the example in my previous
post is likely to be at least functionally equivalent to the one you
presented yourself. Therefore, it seems to me that an independent
third-party might be beneficial. The one I had in mind has no
affiliation with either of us, and no bias either way. In fact, the
observer is automated. I speak of BrowserCam.

I registered a trial account and pointed all Windows versions of IE at
the test I described. I'll let the resulting screenshots speak for
themselves.

<http://mwinter.webhop.info/xhtml-test/screenshots.html>

Be sure to notice the download prompt in the lower right corner, where
appropriate.

[snip]

Mike

--
Michael Winter
Prefix subject with [News] before replying by e-mail.
May 14 '06 #102
VK

Michael Winter wrote:
It dawned on me - too late, admittedly - that the example in my previous
post is likely to be at least functionally equivalent to the one you
presented yourself. Therefore, it seems to me that an independent
third-party might be beneficial. The one I had in mind has no
affiliation with either of us, and no bias either way. In fact, the
observer is automated. I speak of BrowserCam.


Do you have a written proof that you are not a major BrowserCam
stockholder? No one of your relatives is on board of directors of the
above mentioned business unit? :-))

I have to make an online sale collection of 2000 French purses for my
customer by Tuesday. So no time for real programming - only for loosy
text typing like right now. We'll make it a week project. I promise to
say "I was wrong" whereever and /if/ I was.

May 14 '06 #103

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.