W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg-old@w3.org > January to April 1998

RE: Comments on draft-ietf-http-v11-spec-rev-03

From: Paul Leach <paulle@microsoft.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 16:43:02 -0800
Message-Id: <5CEA8663F24DD111A96100805FFE6587031E3CA9@red-msg-51.dns.microsoft.com>
To: 'Jeffrey Mogul' <mogul@pa.dec.com>
Cc: "'http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com'" <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com>
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/5528

> ----------
> From: 	Jeffrey Mogul[SMTP:mogul@pa.dec.com]
> Sent: 	Friday, March 27, 1998 2:51 PM
> To: 	http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com
> Subject: 	Re: Comments on draft-ietf-http-v11-spec-rev-03 
> How does
> 	mark the cached object as "must-revalidate"
> differ from
> 	invalidate the cached object
In my mind, at least, invalidate implies "never return it in response to any
later request", and usually, that means to delete it from the cache. Whereas
"must-revalidate" implies "keep the bits in the cache, but do a conditional
GET (or whatever) before returning them in any later request".

Thus, even if they are technically identical, the implication I would form
upon reading the two alternatives are quite different.
Received on Saturday, 28 March 1998 04:45:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:40:22 UTC