- From: Koen Holtman <koen@win.tue.nl>
- Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 20:08:34 +0100 (MET)
- To: Jim Gettys <jg@pa.dec.com>
- Cc: http-wg@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Jim Gettys: > [...] >Here's my question: >=================== > >Should the text for POST not in fact be a general statement for methods, >(saying "MUST NOT be cached", rather than "are not cachable" to make it >crystal clear). This would make things much more consistent, and allow >a origin server control over what is going on). > >This would result in putting this sentence in secion 9: > >"Responses to methods other than GET or HEAD MUST NOT be cached, unless >the response includes appropriate Cache-Control or Expires header fields" I believe that the spec makes the above statement somewhere already, though I just tried to find it and failed. Jeff? >And removing the statements about "Response to this method are not cachable." >in section 9.2, 9.5, 9.6, 9.7 (methods OPTIONS, POST, PUT, DELETE.) I have always interpreted these 'are not cachable' lines as useful reminders of the general rule I just failed to find. Removing them would decrease the readability of the document I think. >Besides the cleanlyness and simplification this change would make, the >other big feature of this is that it makes caching behavior crystal clear >for extensions to HTTP - that caching is not allowed unless the server >marks the response cachable. > >Is there any danger in this I don't see? As far as I can see making these changes does not introduce some new danger. > - Jim Koen.
Received on Friday, 13 November 1998 11:14:21 UTC