- From: Henrik Nordstrom <henrik@henriknordstrom.net>
- Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2009 00:55:17 +0200
- To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
tor 2009-09-17 klockan 12:03 +1000 skrev Mark Nottingham: > This is vague; the wording here implies that the history list has the > same > store as the cache, even though they are almost always implemented > separately, as the history list needs to incorporate browser-side > state as > well as resource state. Does it? Are we talking about the note at the end of 13.13? To me that note is there to explain why history list SHOULD NOT be the same as cache... > 1. CC: no-store (and possibly other) directives apply to history > lists as > well, or I think only no-store is relevant there.. Expiration and revalidation is as specified not relevant to history lists. > 2. Some other history-specific directives need to be minted (out of > scope > for HTTPbis, but it can be discussed on-list) no-store should be quite sufficient imho. respecting max-age=0 in history lists would be very annoying, and inconsistent if handled very much different from max-age=1. but on the other hand most browsers do not implement history lists exactly as specified, but instead do load much content from cache when navigating the history and often even respect expiration. Regards Henrik
Received on Thursday, 17 September 2009 22:55:54 UTC