- From: Shel Kaphan <sjk@amazon.com>
- Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 20:19:21 -0700
- To: Paul Leach <paulle@microsoft.com>
- Cc: "'Larry Masinter'" <masinter@parc.xerox.com>, "'mogul@pa.dec.com'" <mogul@pa.dec.com>, "'http-caching@pa.dec.com'" <http-caching@pa.dec.com>
Paul Leach writes: > 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.). > Actually, its not just when max-age=0, its when the cached thing is stale and allowed "loosenings" are also being exceeded. Must-verify seems to me to be orthogonal to max-age. Whenever a cache might ignore max-age or expires, must-verify says that you can't "legally" ignore the staleness unless the user is warned prominently. Nothing can stop browser writers from ignoring that part of the spec, but at least then they'd be violating the spec. > 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. > I like it. --Shel
Received on Thursday, 11 April 1996 03:56:18 UTC