- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2009 16:30:31 +1100
- To: Brian Smith <brian@briansmith.org>
- Cc: "'HTTP Working Group'" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Yep, but it's still fundamentally different, and C-L is still used in cache invalidation. On 06/10/2009, at 4:26 PM, Brian Smith wrote: > 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 > > -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Tuesday, 6 October 2009 05:31:06 UTC