- From: Balint Nagy Endre <bne@bne.ind.eunet.hu>
- Date: Wed, 27 Sep 1995 08:18:36 +0100 (MET)
- To: http WG <http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Hi all, I am thinking about *moved responses and cacheing. My questions on this topic, and suggested answers to them: 1. are 301 (permanently moved) responses cacheable? Yes, 301 means a permanent state/condition. (Link editing recommended by the draft for this case is a form of cacheing too.) 2. Is legal the use of expires and max-age in 302 responses? Yes, because both can express the desired time limit of the temporary move of the request-uri. 3. Is 302 response cacheable? Depends on answer to 2. My suggestion is: Cacheable, if expires or max-age present. Are these ideas worth the effort to write down them as proposals? Andrew. (Endre Balint Nagy) <bne@bne.ind.eunet.hu>
Received on Wednesday, 27 September 1995 02:37:30 UTC