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

Re: Location Proposals

From: John Franks <john@math.nwu.edu>
Date: Wed, 6 Sep 1995 09:05:15 -0500 (CDT)
Message-Id: <199509061405.JAA09305@hopf.math.nwu.edu>
To: Shel Kaphan <sjk@amazon.com>
Cc: koen@win.tue.nl, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
According to Shel Kaphan:
> 
> According to what Jeff Mogul just recently said, "expires:
> <yesterday>" accomplishes this "conditional caching".  The cache is
> allowed to serve an expired, cached document if it receives a 304
> response on a conditional GET to re-fetch the document, but it would
> definitely have to issue a new conditional GET on each request.
> (Unless 304 is allowed to update header information, as I think Andrew
> suggested).
> 

Once again, "conditional caching" is an important request for the server
to communicate to the proxy, but it has nothing to do with an expiration
date.  Why force the proxy and client to parse a bogus date and 
compare it with the current date?  Why confuse proxy, client and server
writers who assume Expires: <date> means the document expires on that
date?

A desire for conditional caching by the server belongs in a
Cache-Control header.  Why not "Cache-Control: cache-conditionally"

John Franks
Received on Wednesday, 6 September 1995 07:07:55 EDT

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