W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > October to December 2003

Re: Redirection

From: <jon@hackcraft.net>
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2003 10:00:02 +0000
Message-ID: <1068717602.3fb356226d9c4@>
To: "w3c-wai-ig@w3.org" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>

> It's a MUST NOT in RFC 2616 as far as caching ? URIs without explicit
> expiry information:
>    We note one exception to this rule: since some applications have
>    traditionally used GETs and HEADs with query URLs (those containing a
>    "?" in the rel_path part) to perform operations with significant side
>    effects, caches MUST NOT treat responses to such URIs as fresh unless
>    the server provides an explicit expiration time. This specifically
>    means that responses from HTTP/1.0 servers for such URIs SHOULD NOT be
>    taken from a cache. See section [41]9.1.1 for related information.
> <http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec13.html#sec13.9>
I was two steps ahead of myself and assuming that everyone explicitly sets as 
much cache information as they can in their applications!

A stupid assumption on my part.

Jon Hanna
*Thought provoking quote goes here*
Received on Thursday, 13 November 2003 05:00:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 13 October 2015 16:21:26 UTC