W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > http-caching-historical@w3.org > April 1996

Re: Alternates, 300 responses, and cache keys

From: Jeffrey Mogul <mogul@pa.dec.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 96 18:10:58 MDT
Message-Id: <9604190110.AA12563@acetes.pa.dec.com>
To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@avron.ICS.UCI.EDU>
Cc: http-caching@pa.dec.com
    > I do like Koen's suggestion that only 200 and 206 responses are
    > cachable with an explicit expiration time (Expires: or max-age:);
    > it simplifies part of the caching design that I hadn't gotten around
    > to writing (because I wasn't sure how to deal with it).  Here's what
    > I plan to include:
    
    Nope -- cachable if marked as such.  
    
That message of mine would have made more sense if I had typed it
correctly:

    I do like Koen's suggestion that only 200 and 206 responses are
    cachable WITHOUT an explicit expiration time (Expires: or max-age:);
    it simplifies part of the caching design that I hadn't gotten around
    to writing (because I wasn't sure how to deal with it).

Roy adds:
    If Cache-control: public is given without any max-age or expires,
    that means for as long as the cache likes.

I suppose this makes sense (or rather, it doesn't make sense to
add Cache-control: public to a response that you don't want anyone
to cache, so the cache may as well interpret it as if it were cachable.)
I'll add it.

-Jeff
Received on Friday, 19 April 1996 01:37:51 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 28 November 2008 20:51:42 GMT