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: Brian Smith <brian@briansmith.org>
Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2009 22:27:48 -0600
To: "'Mark Nottingham'" <mnot@mnot.net>, "'HTTP Working Group'" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <003001ca5d07$2cd43760$867ca620$@org>
Mark Nottingham wrote:
> Roy pointed out in conversation that 206 is most relevant  here; it
> changes the interpretation of a response fundamentally.  I.e., it's
> legitimate for a 206 to have directives that make it cacheable, but if
> a cache doesn't understand the 206 status code, it can't be cached.

For 206, is it really the status code that changes the caching behavior, or
is it the presence of the Content-Range header in the response? AFAICT, it
would be clearer to replace all the requirements in P5 & P6 specifically
mentioning 206 responses with statements "any response with a Content-Range

Actually, what is the difference between a 200 response with a Content-Range
and a 206 response with a Content-Range? The 206 status code seems to mean
200 + "whoa, look out, there's probably a Content-Range header." But,
there's no prohibition against using Content-Range with other status codes
(especially extension status codes).

Received on Wednesday, 4 November 2009 04:28:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:10:52 UTC