- From: Ben Laurie <ben@gonzo.ben.algroup.co.uk>
- Date: Fri, 18 Oct 1996 20:50:22 +0100 (BST)
- To: Ari Luotonen <luotonen@netscape.com>
- Cc: ben@algroup.co.uk, mogul@pa.dec.com, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Ari Luotonen wrote: > > > > OK, here's my creative solution ... a 1.1 proxy receiving a Warning > > should make the entity look out-of-date to any 1.0 clients. The > > Warning can then be safely cached in 1.0 caches, because it will be > > cleared by a fresh copy of the same entity without the Warning which > > looks more up-to-date than the cached copy. > > I would consider that kind of distortion of meta data to be bad. I > think we're going too far if we're starting to modify our response to > fool 1.0 cache to do what 1.1 prefers. May as well just send a > standard error message saying "buzz off 1.0 cache, you need to upgrade > to 1.1, or I will forever torture you with bogus responses that will > confuse you out of your little mind". > > Either (1) live with it (this only occurs with cascades), or (2) > suppress the warning headers when giving a response to 1.0 cache (with > the possible exception of "14 Transformation applied"). I would > prefer (2). I didn't say it was a good idea, just that it was creative. If Jeff wants creativity, who am I to deny him? ;-) I've already stated my preference. I'm in agreement with you. Cheers, Ben. -- Ben Laurie Phone: +44 (181) 994 6435 Freelance Consultant and Fax: +44 (181) 994 6472 Technical Director Email: ben@algroup.co.uk A.L. Digital Ltd, URL: http://www.algroup.co.uk London, England. Apache Group member (http://www.apache.org)
Received on Friday, 18 October 1996 13:51:24 UTC