W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2009

Re: httpbis-p6-cache-06 and no-store response directive

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 11:26:02 +1000
Cc: Bil Corry <bil@corry.biz>, Henrik Nordstrom <henrik@henriknordstrom.net>, yngve@opera.com, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <0E371A01-EBD2-4B5A-9077-5EA6BCB65CFF@mnot.net>
To: Jamie Lokier <jamie@shareable.org>
I'm going to push back on that a bit. I'd put forth that any browser  
that doesn't understand Cache-Control: no-store is also not going to  
do Ajax (because it'll lack XmlHttpRequest), isn't going to have what  
people today consider a usable JS implementation, etc. CC has been  
around for a *long* time.

I'm in the midst of putting together some tools to get some metrics  
off of implementations ATM...

Cheers,


On 25/06/2009, at 10:46 AM, Jamie Lokier wrote:

> This is what I've found, for the paranoid:
>
>    Pragma: no-cache
>    Cache-Control: no-cache,max-age=0,must-revalidate,pre- 
> check=0,post-check=0
>    Expires: VERY-OLD-DATE
>
> The apparently redundant fields are in case of implementations which
> don't understand, or don't correctly implement, the other fields.
>
> There's probably a browser out there which doesn't understand
> "Cache-Control: no-cache,..." when there's anything else on the same
> line.  IE had a reputation for being a bit rigid in how it recognises
> some headers.  But I'm pretty sure anything like that will recognise
> "Pragma: no-cache" so it doesn't matter.


--
Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Thursday, 25 June 2009 01:26:44 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:04 GMT