- From: Shel Kaphan <sjk@amazon.com>
- Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 18:06:45 -0700
- To: Jeffrey Mogul <mogul@pa.dec.com>
- Cc: Paul Leach <paulle@microsoft.com>, "'http-caching@pa.dec.com'" <http-caching@pa.dec.com>
Jeffrey Mogul writes: ... > Henry Sanders made an interesting suggestion to me -- what if we made > max-age=0 always mandatory (same as proposed "must-validate", but told > people to use max-age=1 when it was (barely) acceptable for end-user > caches to violate it. > ... It makes > the list of cache-control directives one entry shorter. It makes > it slightly more likely that someone will be confused about the > meaning of max-age (since it has this somewhat odd shift). > > -Jeff Personally I dislike such overloading of terms. It just makes it harder for those that come later to figure out what was intended. This is what I would class as a "coding trick". It really isn't necessary in this case. I agree with you that: > I think we (except probably for Roy) are basically nit-picking about > an encoding scheme. So long as the "mandatory" option exists, my only strong preference is that the protocol representation of it be as self-evident as possible. --Shel
Received on Thursday, 11 April 1996 01:39:06 UTC