- From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@avron.ICS.UCI.EDU>
- Date: Tue, 09 Apr 1996 17:46:07 -0700
- To: Koen Holtman <koen@win.tue.nl>
- Cc: mogul@pa.dec.com, http-caching@pa.dec.com
> There is a real risk that frivolous use of max-age=0 will lead to > configurable options in user agents to switch off the staleness > warnings. Must-revalidate with my proposed text provides a way around > this risk. No it doesn't. What service provider would send max-age=0 when they know that must-validate is supposed to be stronger? Given that, what implementor will refuse to include the option to ignore must-validate when people counting hits include must-validate? All you have done is added another name that applications will need to parse -- it does not change the economics of the situation. This feature would be better accomplished my varying degrees of warning message rather than by different protocol elements to accomplish the same task. .....Roy
Received on Wednesday, 10 April 1996 02:10:10 UTC