- From: Balint Nagy Endre <bne@bne.ind.eunet.hu>
- Date: Wed, 16 Aug 1995 23:16:43 +0200 (MET DST)
- To: Roy Fielding <fielding@beach.w3.org>
- Cc: http wg discussion <http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Roy Fielding writes: > Something that the WG needs to keep in mind is that what I write in > the *draft* specification is what I believe to be the abstract and > specific semantics of each feature in the protocol. I am counting > on people to correct me when what I write does not match their own > interpretation of the protocol. Since I've developed my own client > library, client, and small portions of two servers, most of the time > I do get it right, but certainly not all of the time. I found the Draft 01 concerning Pragma: no-cache in particular and pragmas in general acceptable. I vote for no change. Otherwise why to introduce pragmas at all. (there wolud be no differenc between pragmas and request/response headers.) ... snip ... snip ... snip ... > We can then add a new directive to cover the semantics of a response > that must not be shared by multiple users. We could call it "private", > but I am afraid that this would also imply privacy, which it shouldn't. > Unfortunately, there does not seem to be an antonym for "shared" or > "communal", so how about > > Pragma: non-shared > no-sharing > do-not-share > > Er, on second thought, maybe we should just use "private"... But what is the difference between the Pragma: no-cache and Pragma: private? I see only formal difference, but no semanthical. Andrew.
Received on Wednesday, 16 August 1995 21:07:40 UTC