- From: Martin J. Dürst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
- Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2017 16:29:57 +0900
- To: Matthew Kerwin <matthew@kerwin.net.au>, Barry Tunetheweb <barry@tunetheweb.com>
- Cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, McGuireV10 <mcguirev10@gmail.com>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On 2017/12/01 06:14, Matthew Kerwin wrote: > I wasn't aware that browsers cache the 301. (I mean, maybe if you send the > right combination of cache headers along with the response...) And even if > they do, doesn't "forever" in a browser cache usually mean a couple of > months (assuming no further hits)? > > I always read 301 as about updating bookmarks, crawler/search indices, etc. Me too. And my understanding was that in that case, the bookmark would just store the new URI, and forget the old one. Otherwise, they would have to store two or more URIs for each bookmark. In that sense, a 301 would definitely be permanent (no way for the origin location to undo the redirect), which would be fine because permanent is supposed to mean permanent, or not? But it wouldn't be a problem for a new attempt to go to the previous URI, either. Regards, Martin.
Received on Friday, 1 December 2017 07:30:59 UTC