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

Re: draft-snell-http-prefer

From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2012 11:49:52 -0700
Message-ID: <CABkgnnWnGHw0ZbHQTX2N9BFTiy=Xbv=46iR8GoWq6i7zqrC2-A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ken Murchison <murch@andrew.cmu.edu>
Cc: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On 12 October 2012 10:11, Ken Murchison <murch@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote:
> In other words, is there a way to make the response suitable for a cache to
> use it to satisfy subsequent GET/HEAD requests, in the same way that POST
> responses can be?

p2 is quite clear on PUT and caches: PUT invalidates caches and nothing more.

My hope was that the rules for indicating that a response is cacheable
would be more generally applicable than for just POST.  I can see how
"return-representation" on PUT would be a useful optimization for
cache population.
Received on Friday, 12 October 2012 18:50:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:11:07 UTC