W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > January to March 2013

Re: #430 / #268 - definition of "public"

From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2013 18:06:17 -0800
Message-Id: <240CA5BF-CBCF-4F6C-9FE0-375B8630ED2E@gbiv.com>
Cc: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
To: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Neither of which is relevant to this discussion of cache control. It is not the recipients job to second guess the origin server.

....Roy


On Jan 30, 2013, at 1:37 PM, David Morris <dwm@xpasc.com> wrote:

> 
> 
> On Wed, 30 Jan 2013, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> 
>> Yes.  Generally speaking, if the origin server puts two mutually
>> exclusive directives in the same header field, they want the
>> recipient to apply the most lenient one to which they are fully
>> compliant (i.e., the same principle we define for extensions).
>> 
>> If the origin server doesn't want that, then it doesn't send public.
>> 
>> I don't see anything vague about it (at least no more vague than the
>> concept of caching itself).  And keep in mind that this is only a
>> MAY for caches: they don't have to cache it; they have permission to.
> 
> Ummm ... that interpretation applied to a conflict in a privacy setting
> makes no sense ... a conflcit regarding privacy and/or security must
> always be resolved with the most restrictive directive.
> 
Received on Thursday, 31 January 2013 02:06:48 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 31 January 2013 02:06:50 GMT