W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2012

Re: WGLC #353: Multiple Values in Cache-Control headers

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2012 12:15:09 +0200
Message-ID: <4FD1D0AD.4080109@gmx.de>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
CC: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 2012-06-08 12:06, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>
> On 08/06/2012, at 7:57 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:
>
>> On 2012-06-08 09:30, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>>> Revised proposal, based upon discussion:
>>>
>>>> Add a note to <https://svn.tools.ietf.org/svn/wg/httpbis/draft-ietf-httpbis/latest/p6-cache.html#calculating.freshness.lifetime>:
>>>>
>>>> """
>>>> When there is more than one value present for a given directive (e.g., two Expires headers, multiple Cache-Control: max-age directives), it is considered invalid. Caches SHOULD consider responses that have invalid freshness information to be stale.
>>>> """
>>>
>>>
>>> Any further comments? Otherwise we'll close and incorporate.
>>> ...
>>
>> Would it make sense to have generic text in the definition of Cache-Control about this?
>
> Don't think so, because...
>
>> Does the "must have a single value" rule apply to all directives?
>
> No; I've seen examples that use multiple values (can't remember what ATM)

If that is the case, we probably need to spend some more time on 
clarifying this, as this different from similar header fields.

>> Can the definition of error recovery diverge per directive?
>
> I imagine so.

Which makes it sound as if we should define it for all directives 
defined in this spec (as bad as this sounds)...

Best regards, Julian
Received on Friday, 8 June 2012 10:15:44 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 8 June 2012 10:15:50 GMT