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

Re: Comments on draft-v10-03a.

From: Koen Holtman <koen@win.tue.nl>
Date: Fri, 1 Sep 1995 15:26:17 +0200 (MET DST)
Message-Id: <199509011326.PAA06602@wswiop05.win.tue.nl>
To: Roy Fielding <fielding@beach.w3.org>
Cc: koen@win.tue.nl, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Roy Fielding:
>Koen writes:
>>8.10  Last-Modified
>>-------------------
>>
>>In current caching practice, this header is very important: caches use
>>the heuristic that documents that contain no Last-modified, no
>>Expires, and no Pragma should not be cached.
>
>Nope, I will not include that heuristic in the spec.  It is neither
>consistant nor "correct" behavior on the part of HTTP/1.0 clients;
>it is simply a heuristic which will be void as soon as a better
>mechanism is present.

A better mechanism is already present: Expires.  What matters is that a vast
number of scripts producing dymamic output do not use the better mechanism.

I feel that cache authors need to be warned about this, hence my proposed
note.  Cache authors should be free to ignore the note, though, I'm not
trying to cast this heuristic in stone.

>>Alternatively, an appendix could be devoted to summarizing all caching
>>implications of the protocol and describing current caching practice.
>
>That will be done for HTTP/1.1.

Great!  Are you planning to include algorithm outlines?

>>8.11  Location
[...]
>In any case, from the discussion it would seem best not to add Location
>to 2xx and simply provide 303 See Other instead.

I don't mind if Location goes, the caching benefit of having Location would
not be that great.  But mind you, most of the Location problems discussed
are shared by the URI header.  Do you want that one to go too?

> ....Roy T. Fielding  Department of ICS, University of California, Irvine USA

Koen.
Received on Friday, 1 September 1995 06:40:16 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 24 September 2003 06:31:30 EDT