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>


> ----------
> 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 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 24 September 2003 06:33:14 EDT