- From: Henrik Nordström <henrik@henriknordstrom.net>
- Date: Sat, 03 Mar 2012 03:33:26 +0100
- To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
lör 2012-03-03 klockan 11:22 +1100 skrev Mark Nottingham: > So, it seems like we have three options: > > 1. leave it alone. > > 2. align the language in no-cache with that in private. > > 3. deprecate the semantics of these values (but still allow them syntactically). > > > Personally, I'm in favour of #3; I love using esoteric features of caching, but this one has never been useful IMO. They have good use for site tracking cookies. If sites start using them caches are likely to follow. My preference is 2 or maybe 1. Original 2616 wording in no-cache is not very confusing imho even if the validation part is practically nonsense. Regards Henrik
Received on Saturday, 3 March 2012 02:33:58 UTC