- From: Lou Montulli <montulli@mozilla.com>
- Date: Tue, 15 Aug 95 22:02:24 -0700
- To: John Franks <john@math.nwu.edu>
- Cc: Lou Montulli <montulli@mozilla.com>, john@math.nwu.edu, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
In article <199508160450.XAA04365@hopf.math.nwu.edu> John Franks
<john@math.nwu.edu> wrote:
>
> According to Lou Montulli:
>
> > I recently changed netscape to interpret "Pragma: no-cache" and not
> > cache the object. This is slightly different than a "Expires" header
> > because the object will not even be cached for history navigation.
> > (Documents that are expired are still shown when traversing the session
> > history). Haveing the client interpret "Pragma: no-cache" lets servers
> > tell the client that this information is highly sensitive or volitile
> > and should not be cached in any way.
>
>
> Well, I find this reasonable. But, I believe that the latest version of
> the spec says the client should ignore Pragma: no-cache. What I think
> is important is that there be some way to stop the client from caching
> -- as apparently there now is with Netscape. :)
>
> I don't care if it is Pragma: no-cache or if there is a separate way
> (Pragma: no-local-cache ?) but apparently someone does since the spec
> wants the client to ignore Pragma: no-cache. Could someone explain
> the rationale for this?
>
I would prefer a more standardized way of doing it if one exists or
is created. I haven't released any code that parses Pragma: no-cache
yet, so lets come up with something different and use that.
:lou
--
Lou Montulli http://www.mcom.com/people/montulli/
Netscape Communications Corp.
Received on Tuesday, 15 August 1995 22:05:29 UTC