- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Fri, 04 Nov 2011 15:52:56 +0100
- To: Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>
- CC: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 2011-11-04 15:21, Yves Lafon wrote: > ... >>> +0 -- not against it, not sure it's really necessary (but happy to >>> put it in if that moves us forward). >>> ... >> >> I think *some* prose around this is useful, as otherwise the same >> questions continue to come up again and again. >> >> *If* we believe that the decorate-with-Cache-Control thingy works, we >> should say so. If we do not, we could shorten the note. > > Well, caching a redirect is different than stating that it's permanent. What observable difference would it make? > The best thing we can do here would probably be to rename 307's reason > phrase to "Proper Redirect" instead of "Temporary Redirect"... Well, changing the reason phrase alone doesn't change the definition. Do you *want* to change the definition? > Also an expiry far in time is still valid cache information, saying > "over XX seconds, consider it as permanent" seems weird, at worst, > introducing a 'permanent' Cache-Control might help (as it might help for > other things than doing a "proper 301"). That sounds like a good idea on it's own; but I don't think we can squeeze that into the HTTPbis charter... Best regards, Julian
Received on Friday, 4 November 2011 14:53:38 UTC