W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg-old@w3.org > May to August 1995

Re: Expires, Last-Modified, Pragma: no-cache etc.

From: Lou Montulli <montulli@mozilla.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 95 22:02:24 -0700
Message-Id: <30317BE0.41C6@mozilla.com>
To: John Franks <john@math.nwu.edu>
Cc: Lou Montulli <montulli@mozilla.com>, john@math.nwu.edu, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
In article <199508160450.XAA04365@hopf.math.nwu.edu> John Franks
<john@math.nwu.edu> wrote:
> 
> According to Lou Montulli:
> 
> > I recently changed netscape to interpret "Pragma: no-cache" and not
> > cache the object.  This is slightly different than a "Expires" header
> > because the object will not even be cached for history navigation.
> > (Documents that are expired are still shown when traversing the session
> > history).  Haveing the client interpret "Pragma: no-cache" lets servers
> > tell the client that this information is highly sensitive or volitile
> > and should not be cached in any way.
> 
> 
> Well, I find this reasonable.  But, I believe that the latest version of
> the spec says the client should ignore Pragma: no-cache.  What I think
> is important is that there be some way to stop the client from caching
> -- as apparently there now is with Netscape. :)
> 
> I don't care if it is Pragma: no-cache or if there is a separate way
> (Pragma: no-local-cache ?) but apparently someone does since the spec
> wants the client to ignore Pragma: no-cache.  Could someone  explain
> the rationale for this?
> 

I would prefer a more standardized way of doing it if one exists or
is created.  I haven't released any code that parses Pragma: no-cache
yet, so lets come up with something different and use that.


:lou
-- 
Lou Montulli                 http://www.mcom.com/people/montulli/
       Netscape Communications Corp.
Received on Tuesday, 15 August 1995 22:05:29 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 24 September 2003 06:31:24 EDT