RE: Must-revalidate [was Re: Warning: header, need origin]

Jeff's second to the last message finally got thru to me. The only
overloading is my brain because of the name. It's not "must-revalidate";
it's "must-verify" with the user if you're going to over-ride when
max-age=0.  The confusion is because max-age=0 already means
"must-revalidate" (except when user preferences say not to.).

This misunderstanding based on the name has confused at least Henry and
me. Maybe it's the Redmond air.

How about "Cache-control: must-verify" or "Cache-control: user-verify"
instead of "Cache-control: must-revalidate"? Anything whose name doesn't
imply a redundancy with max-age=0 that doesn't exist.

>----------
>From: 	Larry Masinter[SMTP:masinter@parc.xerox.com]
>Sent: 	Wednesday, April 10, 1996 6:15 PM
>To: 	Paul Leach
>Cc: 	mogul@pa.dec.com; http-caching@pa.dec.com
>Subject: 	RE: Must-revalidate [was Re: Warning: header, need origin] 
>
>Is there no useful meaning to max-age=0 other than "must-validate"?
>I'm really uneasy about overloading/special casing here. Since it
>doesn't save bytes, protocol, or implementation complexity, let's not.
>
>
>

Received on Thursday, 11 April 1996 01:46:31 UTC