W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg-old@w3.org > January to April 1997

Re: HTTP/1.1 Issue: max-age in responses not defined

From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@kiwi.ICS.UCI.EDU>
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 1997 17:46:48 -0800
To: Jeffrey Mogul <mogul@pa.dec.com>
Cc: http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com
Message-Id: <9703311747.aa28491@paris.ics.uci.edu>

>I believe what Roy meant by "non-cachable" is "not usable without
>revalidation", not "not storable".

No, I meant not "cachable" as defined by RFC 2068.  The paragraph
would not be needed if I meant "not usable without revalidation",
since the existing definitition of Expires adequately covers that.

....Roy

Received on Monday, 31 March 1997 17:50:31 EST

This message: [ Message body ]
Next message: Jeffrey Mogul: "Re: Age Header Field in HTTP/1.1"
Previous message: Roy T. Fielding: "Re: HTTP/1.1 Issue: max-age in responses not defined"
In reply to: Jeffrey Mogul: "Re: HTTP/1.1 Issue: max-age in responses not defined"
Next in thread: Roy T. Fielding: "Re: HTTP/1.1 Issue: max-age in responses not defined"

Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]
Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by thread ] [ by subject ] [ by author ] [ by messages with attachments ]
Help: [ How to use the archives ] [ Search in the archives ]

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 24 September 2003 06:32:34 EDT