RE: Koen's comments on http://ftp.digital.com/%7emogul/cachedraft.txt

Jeff & Koen wrote:

]       This interpretation of 14.2 is completely incorrect.  Ever heard of
]       page counters?
]
] Good point about page counters.  And yet, it's quite clear that
] the draft 1.1 specification allows caching of GET and HEAD methods
] unless the server specifies otherwise.  Is it OK if I change this
] to be:
]    Section 14.2 (``Safe Methods'') of the draft HTTP/1.1
]    specification [1] implies that GET and HEAD methods should not have
]    any side effects that would prevent caching the results of these
]    methods, unless the origin server explicitly prohibits caching.

I would think that page counters, in 1.1, become one of those things 
where the origin server webmaster MUST "care" and explicitly say that 
they shouldn't get cached.

If it isn't already that way: isn't this what happens today -- they 
would get cached if they don't say "Pragma: no-cache" or "Expires: 0" 
or some such?  Isn't that exactly why the owners of servers trying to 
count hits were annoyed?

]
] Anyway, the point of this paragraph (especially the last sentence)
] was to try to make things more explicit.  Do you disagree with
] that statement:
]     We make this explicit: normally, GET and HEAD methods SHOULD NOT
]     have side effects.
] Should I replace "normally" with "unless the server explicitly
] disables caching"?

Yes.

Paul

Received on Tuesday, 9 January 1996 01:28:30 UTC