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

Re: What are "appropriate Cache-Control or Expires header fields"

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 17:35:18 +1100
Cc: "'HTTP Working Group'" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <C0AD1FC6-83CC-47CF-A614-A9A8C91A4045@mnot.net>
To: Brian Smith <brian@briansmith.org>
POST caching is still a work in progress; p6 now accommodates it, but  
we haven't yet modified the definition of POST itself. Stay tuned...

WRT 302 / 307 / 303 -- the use of the term 'cacheable' is cloudy here,  
but otherwise it's pretty straightforward; are you just looking for  
them to reference the header definitions or p6 in general?



On 13/10/2009, at 12:22 PM, Brian Smith wrote:

> What, precisely, must the Cache-Control or Expires header fields  
> contain in
> order to make a response to a POST, a 302 response, a 303 response,  
> or a 307
> response cacheable? This seems to not be specified anywhere in the
> specification.
>
> The definition of POST says: "Responses to this method are not  
> cacheable,
> unless the response includes appropriate Cache-Control or Expires  
> header
> fields."
>
> The definitions of 302 Found and 307 Temporary Redirect both say:  
> "This
> response is only cacheable if indicated by a Cache-Control or  
> Expires header
> field."
>
> The definition of 303 See Other says: "Response SHOULD NOT be cached  
> unless
> it is indicated as cacheable by Cache-Control or Expires header  
> fields."
>
> Thanks,
> Brian
>
>


--
Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Wednesday, 14 October 2009 06:35:50 GMT

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