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

questions, clarifications on 301 and 302 responses

From: Balint Nagy Endre <bne@bne.ind.eunet.hu>
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 1995 08:18:36 +0100 (MET)
To: http WG <http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Message-Id: <88.bne@bne.ind.eunet.hu>
Hi all,
I am thinking about *moved responses and cacheing.
My questions on this topic, and suggested answers to them:
1. are 301 (permanently moved) responses cacheable?
Yes, 301 means a permanent state/condition. (Link editing recommended by
the draft for this case is a form of cacheing too.)
2. Is legal the use of expires and max-age in 302 responses?
Yes, because both can express the desired time limit of the
temporary move of the request-uri.
3. Is 302 response cacheable?
Depends on answer to 2. My suggestion is:
Cacheable, if expires or max-age present.

Are these ideas worth the effort to write down them as proposals?

Andrew. (Endre Balint Nagy) <bne@bne.ind.eunet.hu>
Received on Wednesday, 27 September 1995 02:37:30 UTC

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