- From: Lou Montulli <montulli@mozilla.com>
- Date: Wed, 16 Aug 95 13:56:28 -0700
- To: Shel Kaphan <sjk@amazon.com>
- Cc: Roy Fielding <fielding@beach.w3.org>, Lou Montulli <montulli@mozilla.com>, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
In article <199508162029.NAA13943@bert.amazon.com> Shel Kaphan <sjk@amazon.com>
wrote:
>
> I agree; it seems more robust (and useful) to include end-points in
> the set that can be affected by pragma directives. If you don't, half
> the implementations are going to get it wrong anyway.
>
Great, pragma's can now be interpreted I'm happy. Should
I still interpret "no-cache" or should there be something else?
"no-cache" does seem cleanest.
While we are on the subject it would be nice to have a header
that specified the level of privacy of a document. Simply
using the level of encryption of the document is not enough
because I believe that eventually every document will end up
being transfered securly. If there was a header that transmitted
the privacy level, we could selectively encrypt the disk
and memory cache to prevent unwanted access. It is not currently
practical to do it to every file.
Is there a header that does this already? Or should there be
a new Pragma directive?
:lou
--
Lou Montulli http://www.mcom.com/people/montulli/
Netscape Communications Corp.
Received on Wednesday, 16 August 1995 13:58:20 UTC