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

Re: backward compatibility of non-cachable headers

From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@avron.ICS.UCI.EDU>
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 1996 10:28:13 -0800
To: Shel Kaphan <sjk@amazon.com>
Cc: http-caching@pa.dec.com, state@xent.w3.org
Message-Id: <9602201028.aa16734@paris.ics.uci.edu>
> That must have been before I started reading this list.  It's not
> going to be that useful to dredge up the archives especially since we seem
> to be agreeing -- possibly I misinterpreted some previous comments of
> yours in coming to the conclusion that you didn't think max-age and
> expires in responses were doing essentially the same thing with a
> different encoding.

That is not surprising.  What you are remembering is the discussion
over what the semantics of "Expires" should be.  My opinion (and that
of several other server authors) is that it should return to how it
was originally specified, a.k.a.

    Expires in HTTP means the same thing as the Expires on the top
    on an Internet-Draft.

However, you should note that this does not have any actual effect
on the protocol, since both result in the same behavior by caches.
The difference is only in how the server provides the functionality
to the individual content providers, and when they should use it. 
In any case, the existence of current practice will make them
redundant for some time.

Received on Tuesday, 20 February 1996 18:58:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 19:55:57 UTC