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

Re: Issues-list item "CACHING-CGI"

From: Drazen Kacar <dave@public.srce.hr>
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 1997 02:55:54 +0200
Message-Id: <19970416025554.40354@jagor.srce.hr>
To: http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/3061
Jeffrey Mogul wrote:

> I'm not sure that the HTTP/1.1 specification needs to say much more
> about this ... but since it apparently was not sufficiently clear
> to at least some readers, I'll propose an editorial change.

> I propose adding this to the end of section 13.9:
> 	Note that some HTTP/1.0 cache operators have found that it is
> 	dangerous to cache responses to requests for URLs including the
> 	string "cgi-bin".  HTTP/1.1 caches should follow this practice
> 	for responses that do not include an explicit expiration time.
> 	HTTP/1.1 origin servers that want to allow caching of responses
> 	for URLs including "?" or "cgi-bin" SHOULD include an explicit
> 	expiration time.  Explicit expiration times may be specified
> 	using Expires, or the max-age directive of Cache-Control, or
> 	both.

I think CERN server is usually configured with "htbin" as CGI directory.
There are still a lot of them around. And people who switched from CERN
to something else probably kept htbin directory because all existing
pages pointed to it.

I'm a bit confused with the proposed addition. I thought 
   Cache-Control: public

would be enough, but that's not explicitly stated.

 .-.   .-.    Life is a sexually transmitted disease.
(_  \ /  _)
     |        dave@srce.hr
     |        dave@fly.cc.fer.hr
Received on Tuesday, 15 April 1997 18:01:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:40:19 UTC