W dniu 14.05.2015 o 21:12, Tim Rühsen pisze: > Am Donnerstag, 14. Mai 2015, 15:43:54 schrieb Hubert Tarasiuk: >> W dniu 13.05.2015 o 13:28, Ander Juaristi pisze: >>> And second, I'm not really sure whether --condget is the best name for >>> the switch. >>> Requests that include any of If-Unmodified-Since, If-Match, >>> If-None-Match, or If-Range >>> header fields are also "conditional GETs" as well. >>> We might want to implement one of those in the future and we'd be forced >>> to choose a name which could easily be >>> inconsistent/confusing with --condget. Or maybe we won't. But we don't >>> know that now, so I think >>> it's better to choose a switch more specific to the fact that an >>> If-Modified-Since header will be sent >>> so as to avoid confusion. >> >> Do you have an idea for a better switch name that would not be too long? >> I have noticed that issue earlier, but could not think of a better name >> that would not be too long. :D >> >> Thank you for the suggestions, > > Hi Hubert, > > why not --if-modified-since as a boolean option ? Sounds good. > > I personally would set it to true by default, since it is a very common/basic > HTTP 1.1 header. Ok, I will name the option "--no-if-modified-since" and will enable that by default. > > Regards, Tim >
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
