W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2011

Re: #290 [was: SHOULD-level requirements in p6-caching]

From: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
Date: Wed, 4 May 2011 14:57:28 +0200
To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
Cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20110504125728.GC30824@1wt.eu>
Hi Poul-Henning,

On Wed, May 04, 2011 at 11:03:44AM +0000, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> In message <783761BA-5934-4621-8908-9A13EE60FB90@mnot.net>, Mark Nottingham wri
> tes:
> 
> >So, I'm reluctant to repeat requirements, because we have good reason to =
> >believe that it makes the spec worse, not better.
> 
> I think simply adding:
> 
> 	If there is a Cache-Control header, the Pragma header is ignored.
> 
> Would clarify it even more.

It's different. If we declare that Pragma: no-cache is equivalent to
CC: no-cache, then we simply address conflicts the same way we address
them when multiple CC headers are set.

If you currently know how you deal with two conflicting CC headers, then
you can apply the same method to a CC and a Pragma (eg: probably that the
pragma can win under some circumstances).

Hoping this helps,
Willy
Received on Wednesday, 4 May 2011 12:57:58 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:40 GMT