- From: John Franks <john@math.nwu.edu>
- Date: Sat, 8 Jun 1996 07:44:03 -0500 (CDT)
- To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@liege.ICS.UCI.EDU>
- Cc: Paul Leach <paulle@microsoft.com>, "'jg@w3.org'" <jg@w3.org>, "'http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com'" <http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
On Fri, 7 Jun 1996, Roy T. Fielding wrote: > minor twiddling ... > > > Add the following paragraph to the end of 14.21: > > > > The presence of an Expires header on an response that otherwise would > > by default > > be non-cacheable overrides the default and makes it cacheable. > > would be better phrased as > > The presence of an Expires header field with a date value of some time > in the future indicates that the response is cachable, unless indicated > otherwise by a Cache-Control header field (section 14.9). > I don't think this is true for authenticated responses. In the absence any Cache-Control headers they are not cachable, but they could easily have an Expires header. John Franks Dept of Math. Northwestern University john@math.nwu.edu
Received on Saturday, 8 June 1996 05:46:29 UTC