- From: Shel Kaphan <sjk@amazon.com>
- Date: Wed, 13 Sep 1995 19:34:51 -0700
- To: Roy Fielding <fielding@beach.w3.org>
- Cc: Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com>, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Roy Fielding writes: > >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) The argument against it didn't take the request-header usage into account, because that doesn't overlap with other functionality in a non-orthogonal way. My main problem with it is its redundancy with Expires, (as a response header) with which it appears to have almost identical semantics, though what happens if they are both present is not well defined.
Received on Wednesday, 13 September 1995 19:39:43 UTC