- From: Paul Leach <paulle@microsoft.com>
- Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 18:27:43 -0700
- To: "'Larry Masinter'" <masinter@parc.xerox.com>
- Cc: "'mogul@pa.dec.com'" <mogul@pa.dec.com>, "'http-caching@pa.dec.com'" <http-caching@pa.dec.com>
Jeff's second to the last message finally got thru to me. The only overloading is my brain because of the name. It's not "must-revalidate"; it's "must-verify" with the user if you're going to over-ride when max-age=0. The confusion is because max-age=0 already means "must-revalidate" (except when user preferences say not to.). This misunderstanding based on the name has confused at least Henry and me. Maybe it's the Redmond air. How about "Cache-control: must-verify" or "Cache-control: user-verify" instead of "Cache-control: must-revalidate"? Anything whose name doesn't imply a redundancy with max-age=0 that doesn't exist. >---------- >From: Larry Masinter[SMTP:masinter@parc.xerox.com] >Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 1996 6:15 PM >To: Paul Leach >Cc: mogul@pa.dec.com; http-caching@pa.dec.com >Subject: RE: Must-revalidate [was Re: Warning: header, need origin] > >Is there no useful meaning to max-age=0 other than "must-validate"? >I'm really uneasy about overloading/special casing here. Since it >doesn't save bytes, protocol, or implementation complexity, let's not. > > >
Received on Thursday, 11 April 1996 01:46:31 UTC