- From: Paul Burchard <burchard@horizon.math.utah.edu>
- Date: Sat, 31 Dec 94 18:00:02 -0700
- To: fielding@avron.ICS.UCI.EDU
- Cc: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
[Roy Fielding responds patiently to:] > [Paul Burchard's hasty comments on the HTTP draft:] > > (1) In the definition of the Accept request header, there is no > > mention of a "version" modifier, e.g., > > Accept: text/html; version=3.0 > > The BNF for Accept (Section 5.5.8) includes *(";" parameter): Ah, so it does! Still, I think it's worth pointing this out specially, because gauging client capabilities reliably has been a real problem in the past. > > (2) The semantics of Expires should discourage clients from > > _indiscriminately_ trying to refetch objects, just because > > they have expired. Dynamically-created pages can be ephemeral, > > without having time-dependent content that needs to be updated. > > I will try to clarify that. Unfortunately, what needs to be clarified is that my interpretation of Expires was incorrect. :-) As Chris Lilley put it, I was taking a server-centric view of expiration, whereas Expires was always intended to refer to the client's viewpoint. So, expiration *does* mean that the client is encouraged to re-fetch the URL. I've updated my own server scripts accordingly. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Paul Burchard <burchard@math.utah.edu> ``I'm still learning how to count backwards from infinity...'' --------------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Saturday, 31 December 1994 17:03:00 UTC