3 ms·
The article implies this but doesn't actually say it. It's nice to have the extra detail.
by smallerize 2y ago
The article implies this but doesn't actually say it. It's nice to have the extra detail.
- avg_dev 2y agoWhile it might be nice if the article spelled out the header, I do believe that there is more than implication present. > 00:04:51 GET /w/atom.xml, unconditional. > Fulfilled with 200, 502 KB. > [...] > A 20 minute retry rate with unconditional requests is wasteful. [...] And If-Modified-Since makes a request conditional. https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Conditional_requests#conditional_headers https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Conditiona...
- JadeNB 2y agoYou left out a further explicit mention of conditional requests: > Advised (via Retry-After header) to come back in one day since they are unwilling or unable to do conditional requests. But I think it's still unarguable that the post doesn't explicitly mention If-Modified-Since, which it's not obliged to do, but the mention of it here could be helpful to someone. So why fuss?
- chipsa 2y agoThere’s also the option of “If-None-Match”, to make the request conditional. The point is being conditional, not how.
- rtpg 2y agoRachel has been writing about feed readers a lot on their blog the past year (https://rachelbythebay.com/w/ https://rachelbythebay.com/w/ shows 21 results for "feed reader"), so this is part of a whole narrative. If you're interested in it, I highly recommend just reading from start to end. It's all quite interesting (including building out a whole test service for feed readers to get scored on their behavior)
- soapdog 2y agoI am writing a feed reader and I saved their posts about it to use as my implementation guidelines, got them printed and stuff.