"Eric J. Bowman" wrote: > > No strawmen, please. I consider any HTTP implementation which > deliberately disables caching, in cases where caching is clearly still > desirable (as in your example), by going against a SHOULD in the spec, > etc. as a fringe case. > Sorry, change that to, "I consider any HTTP *conneg* implementation which..." -EricReceived on Monday, 14 April 2008 02:19:06 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 12 September 2008 07:02:20 GMT