- From: Jeffrey Mogul <mogul@pa.dec.com>
- Date: Thu, 18 Apr 96 18:10:58 MDT
- To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@avron.ICS.UCI.EDU>
- Cc: http-caching@pa.dec.com
> I do like Koen's suggestion that only 200 and 206 responses are
> cachable with an explicit expiration time (Expires: or max-age:);
> it simplifies part of the caching design that I hadn't gotten around
> to writing (because I wasn't sure how to deal with it). Here's what
> I plan to include:
Nope -- cachable if marked as such.
That message of mine would have made more sense if I had typed it
correctly:
I do like Koen's suggestion that only 200 and 206 responses are
cachable WITHOUT an explicit expiration time (Expires: or max-age:);
it simplifies part of the caching design that I hadn't gotten around
to writing (because I wasn't sure how to deal with it).
Roy adds:
If Cache-control: public is given without any max-age or expires,
that means for as long as the cache likes.
I suppose this makes sense (or rather, it doesn't make sense to
add Cache-control: public to a response that you don't want anyone
to cache, so the cache may as well interpret it as if it were cachable.)
I'll add it.
-Jeff
Received on Friday, 19 April 1996 01:37:51 UTC