Roy T. Fielding: > >After some good comments from Jeff, I am changing my proposed change. [...] >should be replaced with [...] > Many HTTP/1.0 cache implementations will treat an Expires value that > is less than or equal to the response Date value as being equivalent > to the Cache-Control response directive "no-cache". If an HTTP/1.1 > cache receives such a response, and the response does not include a > Cache-Control header field, it SHOULD consider the response to be ^^^^^^ > non-cachable in order to retain compatibility with HTTP/1.0 servers. ^^^^^^^^^^^^ Eek! This is a completely new SHOULD as far as I can see. I oppose adding this SHOULD because it leads to sub-optimal caching. I don't see any need to be compatible with the `Many HTTP/1.0 cache implementations' the paragraph talks about. I consider these `many implementations' to be sub-optimal, because they should be using I-M-S to revalidate the stale entry instead of just throwing it away. Also, this new SHOULD contradicts the Expires section: |14.21 Expires | | The Expires entity-header field gives the date/time after which the | response should be considered stale. A stale cache entry may not | normally be returned by a cache (either a proxy cache or an user | agent cache) unless it is first validated with the origin server [...] > ...Roy T. Fielding Koen.Received on Monday, 31 March 1997 07:56:40 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 2 February 2023 18:43:01 UTC