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

RE: Clarifying Content-Location (Issue 136)

From: Brian Smith <brian@briansmith.org>
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2009 00:26:10 -0500
To: "'Mark Nottingham'" <mnot@mnot.net>
Cc: "'HTTP Working Group'" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <000401ca4645$84188e50$8c49aaf0$@org>
Mark Nottingham wrote:
> On 06/10/2009, at 3:56 PM, Brian Smith wrote:
> > http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/changeset/691
> 
> The text removed in changeset 691 was very specific to a situation
> where C-L matched the request URI and the ETag and Date said it was
> different; it's a very different thing than the invalidation specified
> for methods with side effects.

No, here is what it said:

    If a cache receives a successful response whose
    Content-Location field matches that of an existing stored
    response for the same Request-URI, whose entity-tag
    differs from that of the existing stored response, and
    whose Date is more recent than that of the existing response,
    the existing response SHOULD NOT be returned in response to
    future requests and SHOULD be deleted from the cache.

In other words:

    If a cache receives a successful response whose
    Content-Location field matches the Content-Location field
    Of an existing stored response for the same request-URI, ...

In particular, note that the cache doesn't compare a Content-Location to a
Request-URI.

Regards,
Brian
    
Received on Tuesday, 6 October 2009 05:26:40 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:12 GMT