- From: Shel Kaphan <sjk@amazon.com>
- Date: Mon, 13 Nov 1995 16:19:09 -0800
- To: Simon Spero <ses@tipper.oit.unc.edu>
- Cc: Lou Montulli <montulli@mozilla.com>, Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com>, ietf-lists@proper.com, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Simon Spero writes: ... > > All that's needed at the moment for this limited sub-problem is a quick > hack; since sticking stuff on the end of URLS takes more work than > sticking in an extra header in the request, and another in the response, > I'd go for the later approach. Add nocache to make sure that proxies > which don't understand byte-ranges don't cache it, and add another pragma > to reenable caching for proxies which do understand byte-ranges. > Since not all proxies understand nocache, a different response code for partial returns (eg 206) would be more backward compatible. It's imperative that these ranges never get inadvertently cached as if they were the whole document. (I hope no proxies or clients ignore the return code and cache anyway). --Shel Kaphan
Received on Monday, 13 November 1995 16:29:43 UTC