W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2002

RE: IE vs vary header

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 09:05:52 +0200
To: "Alex Rousskov" <rousskov@measurement-factory.com>, "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <JIEGINCHMLABHJBIGKBCKEJMENAA.julian.reschke@gmx.de>

> From: ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org]On
> Behalf Of Alex Rousskov
> Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2002 6:20 PM
> To: Julian Reschke
> Cc: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
> Subject: RE: IE vs vary header
> On Wed, 19 Jun 2002, Julian Reschke wrote:
> > I think if I mark them as un-cacheable, the *same* problem in IE
> > will occur -- it fails to pass content to external applications if
> > it decides that the content is not cacheable (their logic is: we
> > pass data to external programs by caching it, but the response
> > headers indicate that the result isn't cacheable, thus we can't
> > pass it on -- funny, isn't it?).
> You may be able to mark them with "Cache-Control: private" to avoid
> the above problem. Also, as somebody suggested to me off-list, you can
> try a must-revalidate cache-control directive so that the content is
> cachable by shared caches but the server has some control based on
> client request headers. The latter option requires must-revalidate
> support in caches and may cause the same IE problems you mention
> above; simple but not a very robust solution.


this was actually a very good suggestion -- for some reason *this* is
accepted by IE.

(It's really time that MS starts listening to reports about serious bugs).

Received on Friday, 28 June 2002 03:06:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:10:35 UTC