Re: Hash Discussion Overview II - the return

Ok, I moved your fixes down

http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/webid/wiki/index.php?title=WebID_Definition%2Fhash2&diff=545&oldid=543

IT would be useful to have an argument to show it is really possible ( perhaps by a hyperlink to a page that explains this ). But this does remove a lot of the efficiency problem for the future at least.

On 8 Dec 2012, at 19:51, Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net> wrote:

> 
> On 8 Dec 2012, at 19:42, Dominik Tomaszuk <ddooss@wp.pl> wrote:
> 
>> FYI:
>> 
>> http://blog.ldodds.com/2012/12/07/http-1-1-changes-relevant-to-linked-data/
> 
> Yes, I saw that Dominik, but I looked for the text and could not find it.
> 
> Nathan recently wrote that: 
>   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webid/2012Dec/0039.html
> [[
> 303 responses by RFC 2616 are not cache'd
> httpbis doesn't speak of caching in regard to 303 any more
> ]]
> 
> Is it simply that they don't mention that they cannot be cached that fixes this?
> The spec is pretty long, so I am not sure.
> 
> IT used to say
> [[
> The 303 response MUST NOT be cached, but the response to the second (redirected) request might be cacheable.
> ]]
> 
> Is the fact that they removed this mean that it is cacheable?
> 
> Henry
> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> Social Web Architect
> http://bblfish.net/
> 

Social Web Architect
http://bblfish.net/