- From: David W. Morris <dwm@shell.portal.com>
- Date: Sun, 18 Feb 1996 15:45:16 -0800 (PST)
- To: http working group <http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
On Sat, 17 Feb 1996, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> I realize that this may seem confusing, but we need to understand that
> the two concepts of "don't answer from a cache" and "conditional GET"
> are completely orthogonal -- the fact that they are used in tandem to
> achieve a forced refresh versus a forced reload does not mean we should
> change the names to be more "meaningful", particularly when such a name
> change would in fact be less meaningful then what we use now.
OK, right now a server sending "no-cache" means "don't-cache" and a client
sending "no-cache" means "not-cached" or "not-from-cache". The current
use of "no-cache" doesn't 'feel' very symetric which may be why, in part,
there is so much confusion. Would the use of slightly different terms
be possible *and* make any difference? ("dont-cache" and "not-cached").
I finally understand why reload != no-cache and I've convinced myself,
at least for the moement that we don't need reload ... I plan to review
draft wording as it should appear clearly in the text by way of example
and it may ...
Dave
Received on Sunday, 18 February 1996 15:48:12 UTC