- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2015 19:07:56 +1100
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Yes, but the semantics of those headers are exactly the same in both directions. Sent from my iPhone > On 2 Feb 2015, at 6:57 pm, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote: > > On 2015-02-02 07:39, Mark Nottingham wrote: >>> Hi there, >>> >>> the minutes (<http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/minutes?item=minutes-90-httpbis.html>) say: >>> >>>> MarK: Different meaning in the request vs. response, makes him twitchy >>> >>> Mark, could you elaborate on that a bit? Do you believe that changing something which currently is a request header field only to be used as response header field as well to be a problem in general? Why? >> >> Experience with Cache-Control -- people get confused over what the pertinent directives are in each direction, and misuse it as a result. >> >> Cheers, > > Well, we've got many other header fields where the experience seems to be exactly the opposite, say Content-Type or Content-Encoding. Thus I'm not yet convinced this is an issue... > > Best regards, Julian >
Received on Monday, 2 February 2015 08:08:28 UTC