- From: Gregory J. Woodhouse <gjw@wnetc.com>
- Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 21:44:31 -0700 (PDT)
- To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@kiwi.ICS.UCI.EDU>
- Cc: Jeffrey Mogul <mogul@pa.dec.com>, http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com
On Tue, 15 Apr 1997, Roy T. Fielding wrote: > CGI is no different than any other part of the server. I think it > is a mistake to encode namespace assumptions into the protocol, > particularly when we have already provided a means for origin servers > to explicitly mark something as non-cachable. > I absolutely agree. There is nothing to stop a CGI programmer from generating appropriate Expires: and Cache-control: headers. In fact, I don't know why a server couldn't have an option feature to disable caching of resources with URLs matching *.cgi, http://domain/cgi-bin/*, etc. But by all means, make this optional. --- gjw@wnetc.com / http://www.wnetc.com/home.html If you're going to reinvent the wheel, at least try to come up with a better one.
Received on Tuesday, 15 April 1997 21:47:14 UTC