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

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

From: Balint Nagy Endre <bne@bne.ind.eunet.hu>
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 1995 23:16:43 +0200 (MET DST)
Message-Id: <199508162116.XAA00480@bne.ind.eunet.hu>
To: Roy Fielding <fielding@beach.w3.org>
Cc: http wg discussion <http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Roy Fielding writes:
> Something that the WG needs to keep in mind is that what I write in
> the *draft* specification is what I believe to be the abstract and
> specific semantics of each feature in the protocol.  I am counting
> on people to correct me when what I write does not match their own
> interpretation of the protocol.  Since I've developed my own client
> library, client, and small portions of two servers, most of the time
> I do get it right, but certainly not all of the time.
I found the Draft 01 concerning Pragma: no-cache in particular
and pragmas in general acceptable. I vote for no change. Otherwise
why to introduce pragmas at all. (there wolud be no differenc between 
pragmas and request/response headers.)
... snip ... snip ... snip ...
> We can then add a new directive to cover the semantics of a response
> that must not be shared by multiple users.  We could call it "private",
> but I am afraid that this would also imply privacy, which it shouldn't.
> Unfortunately, there does not seem to be an antonym for "shared" or
> "communal", so how about
>    Pragma: non-shared
>            no-sharing
>            do-not-share
> Er, on second thought, maybe we should just use "private"...
But what is the difference between the Pragma: no-cache and Pragma: private?
I see only formal difference, but no semanthical.

Received on Wednesday, 16 August 1995 21:07:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:40:14 UTC