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

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

From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
Date: Wed, 4 May 2011 16:21:33 -0700
Cc: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <B86D3AEA-7296-4D07-B547-50D317B92499@gbiv.com>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
On May 4, 2011, at 5:39 AM, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> On 04/05/2011, at 9:03 PM, 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.
> 
> That's not clarifying, that's changing.

That is what Cache-Control was intended to do.  It replaced Pragma.
If Pragma isn't ignored when CC is present then refinements to its
behavior can't be implemented via CC extensions.

....Roy
Received on Wednesday, 4 May 2011 23:21:58 GMT

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