- From: Roy Fielding <fielding@beach.w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 13 Sep 1995 22:23:48 -0400
- To: Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com>
- Cc: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
>In http://www.ics.uci.edu/pub/ietf/http/hypermail/1995q3/0611.html
>
>Roy Fielding says:
>
>> Just as an informational point, I already included these semantics
>> in draft 01 for the "max-age" (now Cache-Control: max-age=NNN) parameter.
>
>This statement confuses me, as I cannot find 'max-age' anywhere in the
>current draft, or in the diffs between the current draft and the
>previous draft.
>
>It sounds like people don't think this is a good idea to add, anyway,
>so I'm glad you didn't actually add this. But why did you say you had?
It is 1.1 now, since draft 01 was prior to the BCP split. And yes,
it is still a good idea, since there has not been a substantive
argument against it which took into consideration that it is also
a request header.
....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 Wednesday, 13 September 1995 19:26:07 UTC