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: Mon, 11 Jun 2012 15:20:13 +0200
Message-ID: <4FD5F08D.9040905@gmx.de>
To: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>
CC: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On 2012-06-11 15:04, Amos Jeffries wrote:
> ...
> * flag parameters can't exactly contradict, so dropping/merging
> duplicates and treating as one flag would seem okay. (only-if-cached
> must-revalidate, proxy-ravalidate, no-cache, no-store, no-transform, etc)

"public" vs "private"?

> * time-delta parameters (max-age, s-maxage, etc) being conservative and
> dropping the larger or equal of the two seems the right handling.

Yes, we could say that.

> * list of tokens ... maybe combine? it is possible one proxy adds
> no-cache="Foo" and another adds no-cache="Bar" and they both hit some
> downstream cache which needs to handle both Foo and Bar properly.
>    Yes the right thing to do woudl have been no-cache="Foo Bar". But
> what if that is not done?

Right now we allow

   no-cache="Foo, Bar"

Should

   no-cache="Foo", no-cache="Bar"

be equivalent? (That would be similar with the use of list syntax in 
header fields)

Best regards, Julian
Received on Monday, 11 June 2012 13:21:12 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 11 June 2012 13:21:17 GMT