- From: Shel Kaphan <sjk@amazon.com>
- Date: Tue, 20 Feb 1996 08:29:37 -0800
- To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@avron.ICS.UCI.EDU>
- Cc: Shel Kaphan <sjk@amazon.com>, http-caching@pa.dec.com, state@xent.w3.org
Roy T. Fielding writes:
>
> > The problem is that the reference to "the
> > request" in the final sentence is unclear: does it refer to (1) the
> > request for which the response contains cache-control: max-age=n? Or
> > does it refer to (2) "a new request" for that resource?
>
> (2). I suppose we should add "new" for that sentence to go along with
> all the other times it is mentioned in that paragragh, but there is
> no other reasonable interpretation of that feature.
>
Right - my interpretation was slanted by what I thought you had said
in earlier discussions on this list, several months ago (something to
the effect of max-age and expires not being redundant, I recall. But
let's forget it and get on with other things, since we seem to be
agreeing now).
...
Since this
> > functionality appears to be redundant, I am forced to conclude that
> > this interpretation, too, must not be what Roy intended.
>
> Why? I've said several times before that the redundancy is NECESSARY
> because people did not want to calculate the expiration time from a
> full HTTP-Date and because clock skew made Expires unreliable for
> short periods. Expires will still be used because of older caches,
> but can be ignored by recipients that understand Cache-control.
> That whole discussion took place on the WG mailing list last summer.
>
OK.
That must have been before I started reading this list. It's not
going to be that useful to dredge up the archives especially since we seem
to be agreeing -- possibly I misinterpreted some previous comments of
yours in coming to the conclusion that you didn't think max-age and
expires in responses were doing essentially the same thing with a
different encoding.
...
--Shel
Received on Tuesday, 20 February 1996 16:55:55 UTC