- From: Koen Holtman <koen@win.tue.nl>
- Date: Mon, 4 Sep 1995 00:12:13 +0200 (MET DST)
- To: Shel Kaphan <sjk@amazon.com>
- Cc: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Shel Kaphan: >Koen: > Shel: > >They sure should do so! If a cache gets a newer copy of a document, > >it should lose the older one, even if its not expired. Is this > >controversial? > > Yes it is controversial. [...] >Should != must. Oh. I guess we are in violent agreement about caching then. But I must object to your use of `should'. This is the http-wg list, so I expect everyone to be using the language of the draft HTTP spec. The spec uses `should == must', as far as I can tell. (Lots of RFC's may not, but that is another matter.) Furthermore, if you say that caches surely should do X on the http-wg list, I can only assume that you want X to be required in the HTTP spec. If you are discussing optional behavior that should not be in the spec, please either do it on www-talk, or use clearer terminology. >--Shel Koen.
Received on Sunday, 3 September 1995 15:19:42 UTC