W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xmlp-comments@w3.org > May 2002

Re: Closing issue 204: Cache control directives

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Wed, 01 May 2002 13:51:39 -0700 (PDT)
To: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>
Message-ID: <1020286299.3cd0555b70ed3@mail.mnot.net>
Cc: xmlp-comments@w3.org

I'd be more comfortable if there were some non-normative text that notes 
that no-transform might be a good idea in some situations; they're 
becoming more prevalent, and awareness of them is low, which can lead 
to debugging problems. 

While Cache-Control isn't special, there are some aspects (especially 
no-transorm and the corresponding Warning) that IMHO would be very 
usefully exposed as binding features.

However, based on discussion that's happened recently in the TAG, I 
imagine that this issue may be subsumed by Last Call issue(s) regarding 
SOAP and Cache-Control in general, so I'm happy to let it go here.

Regards,


Quoting Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>:

> 
> Updated subject
> 
> Henrik Frystyk Nielsen
> mailto:henrikn@microsoft.com
> 
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen 
> >Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2002 12:06
> >To: 'Mark Nottingham'
> >Cc: 'xmlp-comments@w3.org'
> >Subject: Closing issue 204: SOAPAction header and "action" 
> >parameter on media type
> >
> >
> >
> >Mark,
> >
> >The XML Protocol WG [2] has decided to close issue 204 [0], 
> >which you raised against the SOAP 1.2 specification. If the 
> >resolution outlined below is not acceptable to you then please 
> >respond to this mail with a detailed description of your 
> >concerns and preferably what you see not being addressed as 
> >part of the resolution.
> >
> >RESOLUTION
> >----------
> >
> >In [1] you ask whether the WG has considered the various 
> >cache-control directives and in particular "no-transform" and 
> >how that applies to SOAP. The WG discussed the issue and came 
> >to the following conclusion: Any HTTP implementation should 
> >certainly take advantage of the features provided by HTTP [3]. 
> >However, there is nothing particularly special about how the 
> >various cache-control directives apply to SOAP - they are 
> >defined in an entirely orthogonal manner and so the WG didn't 
> >see a reason for why the binding should say.
> >
> >Thank you,
> >
> >Henrik Frystyk Nielsen
> >mailto:henrikn@microsoft.com
> >
> >[0] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/xmlp-issues#x204
> >[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2002Apr/0173.html
> >[2] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/
> >[3] http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2616.txt
> >
> 
Received on Wednesday, 1 May 2002 16:51:47 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 October 2009 08:42:27 GMT