- From: Roy Fielding <fielding@beach.w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 18 Aug 1995 13:04:55 -0400
- To: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
>Pragma is transparent to a user agent. From
><URL:http://www.w3.org/hypertext/WWW/Protocols/HTTP1.0/draft-ietf-http-spec.html#Pragma>:
That is a DRAFT
At the start of this thread, I said that I would change that paragraph.
I am still going to change that paragraph. The fact that it contradicts
our use of Pragma: on response messages is *why* I am changing that paragraph.
Regarding the name "Pragma"
Yes, it is a bad choice for a protocol element name.
We have two choices:
1) Change the name to something relevant, e.g., "Caching"
2) Continue using the same name and simply define the semantics
such that it means what we say it means.
The first choice may look cleaner, but it neglects the fact that Pragma
is already in use, already recognized (and forwarded) by proxies,
and already has the de-facto semantics that we need.
So, what do we do for HTTP/1.1? I am planning on issuing the first 1.1
draft on Monday, so I'd like to hear your opinions now rather than later.
....Roy T. Fielding Department of ICS, University of California, Irvine USA
Visiting Scholar, MIT/LCS + World-Wide Web Consortium
(fielding@w3.org) (fielding@ics.uci.edu)
Received on Friday, 18 August 1995 10:06:27 UTC