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

Re: draft-snell-http-prefer-17 feedback

From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2012 14:48:12 -0800
Message-ID: <CABkgnnV3m-iw=SiaV735+vXEAzYeLbFiTwhwovhrwigtdoOz=A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
On 4 December 2012 01:42, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:
> 3) In Section 1:
>
>>    Another option available to clients is to utilize Request URI query-
>>    string parameters to express preferences.  Doing so, however, results
>>    in a variety of issues affecting the cacheability of responses.
>
>
> That's misleading, as the presence of query parameters (per spec) does not
> affect the cacheability of results (see also
> <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2012OctDec/0040.html>).

That is true in the strictest sent.  But I think that this is an "in
spirit" clause.  If the intent is to retrieve:
  http://example.com/foo
with prefer: wait=5, then asking for
  http://example.com/foo?wait=5
will result in a cache entry against the latter URI, just as
  http://example.com/foo?wait=3
will create another cache entry that are all equally useless to the
requester pulling down the "unmodified" URI.

Any change needs to be aware of the strict interpretation, but make
this implication obvious.
Received on Tuesday, 4 December 2012 22:48:40 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 4 December 2012 22:48:45 GMT