- From: Daniel DuBois <ddubois@spyglass.com>
- Date: Mon, 08 Apr 1996 22:13:50 -0500
- To: http-caching@pa.dec.com
At 12:19 PM 4/10/96 +0200, Koen Holtman wrote:
>Roy T. Fielding:
>>No it doesn't. What service provider would send max-age=0 when they
>>know that must-validate is supposed to be stronger?
>
>I answered this question already: Anti-social service providers
>seeking higher hitcounts will find that including must-revalidate is
>not good for higher hitcounts, because the associated loud warnings
>which we require will scare away the public, so that they end up
Don't the loud warnings come into play only when the browser serves from
cache? If the browser behaves, will it not revalidate like told and then
the user-agent will see no warnings, and then the user has no reason to hold
the site in disregard. Am I missing something?
If the above is true, everyone will indeed use must-revalidate to get hit
counts.
We're designing a protocol. If the protocol is burdened down with redundant
systems, I consider that a 'bad thing'. If the same protocol behavior is
suposed to occur with max-age=0 and must-revalidate, then the two of them
don't both need to exist. We talking about a "this is what you should do"
directive and a "this is really really what you should do" directive.
-----
the Programmer formerly known as Dan
http://www.spyglass.com/~ddubois/
Received on Wednesday, 10 April 1996 15:50:08 UTC