• From: Arjun Ray <arjun.ray@v...>
• To: "xml-dev@l..." <xml-dev@l...>
• Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2014 13:24:03 -0400

[Default] On Sun, 23 Mar 2014 10:36:24 -0600, Brian Aberle
<xmlboss@l...> wrote:

| I can remember surfing the web in the HTTP 1.0 days.  Every 
| page was a fresh update.  Nothing was cached, not by your ISP, 
| not by your browser -

This, of course, is rubbish.  People relatively new to the 'net really
have no idea how seriously "bandwidth" was taken in the early days,
and why consuming network resources without good reason was considered
a cardinal sin. 

That's why the If-Modfied-Since header was in HTTP/1.0. 

| then ETag standardized a way to cache.

Actually no, which is why it is as optional as If-Modified-Since.  It
also "optimizes" for certain use-cases only (where server-side support
for I-M-S could be cumbersome).  E.g.

http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2126807/what-is-the-point-of-if-unmodified-since-if-modified-since-arent-they-supersed

You don't help your case by exaggerating.

• Follow-Ups:
  • RE: AW: RFC for XML Object Parsing
    • From: Brian Aberle <xmlboss@l...>

• References:
  • RE: AW: RFC for XML Object Parsing
    • From: Brian Aberle <xmlboss@l...>
  • RE: AW: RFC for XML Object Parsing
    • From: Hans-Juergen Rennau <hrennau@y...>
  • RE: AW: RFC for XML Object Parsing
    • From: Brian Aberle <xmlboss@l...>