Re: XmlHttpRequest not loading latest version of xml

Randy Webb wrote:

> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn said the following on 11/28/2005 9:50 AM:
>> Matt Kruse wrote:
>>> Sending proper HTTP headers is good also, but the browser may choose to
>>> ignore them and the user may not have any ability to make sure they are
>>> correct.
>>
>> Your logic is flawed. Sending identifying HTTP headers _in that case_
>> would make _no_ difference.
>
> NO, his logic is not flawed. You can specify and send any header you
> want.

However, sending identifying HTTPs header _and_ change the URI would not
make any difference, hence it would not be any better then changing only
the URI. In fact, that would be a complete waste of bandwidth.

> That doesn't mean the browser is going to follow that advice.

That was not was he argued, read again.

> Theory: You set a header, the browser honors it.
> Reality: You set a header, you hope the browser honors it and some don't.

Browsers that do not honor protocol headers that are specified as "MUST be
handled" even in the very first version of that protocol are completely
broken and should not be supported anyway. Fortunately, there is no such
widely supported user agent, including IE.

>>> Except in very specific situations, sending a unique url is still the
>>> best and most consistent option.
>>
>> No, it is not.
>
> Yes it is. It is reliable and dependable.

Perhaps. Which does not make it a Good Thing since there is a
far better alternative, which is also reliable, is available.

>> In all situations the best option is to identify the age of the resource.
>
> That is not always reliable nor dependable. If it were, this discussion
> wouldn't even be being had.

No, the OP any many participants in this discussion, including you, did
not or refuse(d) to know that there are "MUST handle" HTTP headers that
achieve the very same in a far better way than URL modification could.


PointedEars
.

Relevant Pages

  • RE: "Page Cannot Be Displayed" error with IE XP SP2
    ... If you have this in your header and submit a POST from the page, ... Now a consistent browser would not let you ... > an HTTP response from the server. ... > with no custom settings. ...
    (microsoft.public.inetsdk.html_authoring)
  • Re: Questions about HTTP headers sent with PHP in HTTP authentication
    ... And how are status codes sent to the browser if not?? ... and 5.1.2 the header function now prevents more than one header to be ... server send multiple response messages to one request?] ...
    (comp.lang.php)
  • Re: ampersand in urls when using xhtml 1.0 strict
    ... My web server is clearly seeing & and the browser is ... After including this header I was able to remove the encoded ... First, this is very strange because if your browser was displaying the page as HTML, then it was already receiving a content type header from the web server telling it that the page was HTML, or else there was no header and the browser was treating it as HTML by default. ...
    (comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html)
  • Re: ampersand in urls when using xhtml 1.0 strict
    ... My web server is clearly seeing & and the browser (FF ... After including this header I was able to remove the encoded ... the page as HTML, then it was already receiving a content type header ...
    (comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html)
  • Re: Confusing POST behavior -- doing it twice?
    ... The header you set will just do that: ... > 1 - When I start, there is no error message. ... Some just fetch the HTML from cache and display that. ... I have no idea how the current mostly used browser behave. ...
    (comp.lang.php)