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

Re: Cache-control: max-age, uh, where?

From: Roy Fielding <fielding@beach.w3.org>
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 1995 23:15:26 -0400
Message-Id: <199509140315.XAA04656@beach.w3.org>
To: Shel Kaphan <sjk@amazon.com>
Cc: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
>The argument against it didn't take the request-header usage into
>account, because that doesn't overlap with other functionality in a
>non-orthogonal way.  My main problem with it is its redundancy with Expires,
>(as a response header) with which it appears to have almost identical
>semantics, though what happens if they are both present is not
>well defined.

Actually, that is a problem with Expires in general and does not
affect the functionality of max-age.  In fact, both headers can exist
without any confusion whatsoever, since they are not redundant.
Expires should be as it was intended for the CERN server or be
removed from the spec entirely.  

 ....Roy T. Fielding  Department of ICS, University of California, Irvine USA
                      Visiting Scholar, MIT/LCS + World-Wide Web Consortium
                      (fielding@w3.org)                (fielding@ics.uci.edu)
Received on Wednesday, 13 September 1995 20:17:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:40:15 UTC