- From: Koen Holtman <koen@win.tue.nl>
- Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 13:12:42 +0200 (MET DST)
- To: mogul@pa.dec.com (Jeffrey Mogul)
- Cc: koen@win.tue.nl (Koen Holtman), http-caching@pa.dec.com
Jeffrey Mogul: > >You propose > > Cache-Control: max-age=0 > Warning: 42 Revalidation Essential Actually, make that Cache-Control: max-age=0 Cache-Exception: 42 Revalidation Essential > >with essentially the same semantics as I proposed for > > Cache-control: must-revalidate > >Can you clarify how your semantics differ from mine? They do not, as far as I can tell. The purpose of the message in which I proposed this 42 exception code was to show how Cache-control: must-revalidate could be split into two headers *without* a change in semantics. [...] >Frankly, I think on this issue you are right, Roy is wrong, >and it doesn't pay to change the syntax because the two >of you disagree on basic semantics. I agree: If you do not plan to change the name of your Warning header, but instead plan to delete the MUSTS in the 99(?) code following comments from Roy, then the syntax Cache-control: must-revalidate for the semantics I want is best. >-Jeff Koen.
Received on Thursday, 11 April 1996 11:39:37 UTC