Re: [htdig] update vs. initial digging


Joseph Cheek (joseph@cheek.com)
Mon, 31 May 1999 14:38:24 -0700


the dates do not show up the search results, even though they are in the
template afaik.

thanks!

joe
      ___ ___
   __ | |_ __ __ | |_ __ __ _____ * Joseph Cheek, Director
  / _)| \ / _) / _)| _) / _) / \ | | * joseph@cheek.com or
 ( (_ | | |( _)( _)| \ _ ( (_ ( () )| |_| | * (877) CHEEK.COM
  \__)|_|_| \__) \__)|_\_)(_) \__) \__/ |_| |_| * http://www.cheek.com/
    Cheek Consulting, Seattle, provides Linux and Internet solutions
   linux * web commerce * html * java * perl * php * informix * mysql

-----Original Message-----
From: Geoff Hutchison <ghutchis@wso.williams.edu>
To: Joseph Cheek <joseph@cheek.com>
Cc: htdig@htdig.org <htdig@htdig.org>
Date: Sunday, May 30, 1999 9:17 PM
Subject: Re: [htdig] update vs. initial digging

>At 6:01 AM -0400 5/29/99, Joseph Cheek wrote:
>>this is what htdig -vvv -h 0 gave me [which did not stop after the first
url,
>>btw...] Date returned seemed to be current date of dig.
>
>I'll have to take a look. I think the whole hopcount code needs a rewrite,
>but when that will happen...
>
>>so Date: returned is current time, plus i'm still getting the "retrieved
but
>>not changed". 8-(
>
>I think I know what the problem is... If you display the date in the search
>template, do you actually get document dates? I think ht://Dig isn't seeing
>a Last-Modified tag, so it essentially doesn't assign the document a date
>(whereas it *should* assign it the current date-time). Then when it comes
>back, it sees the same "date" and decides it hasn't changed. This would be
>a pretty nasty bug.
>
>
>-Geoff Hutchison
>Williams Students Online
>http://wso.williams.edu/
>
>

------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the htdig mailing list, send a message to
htdig@htdig.org containing the single word "unsubscribe" in
the SUBJECT of the message.



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Mon May 31 1999 - 13:52:28 PDT