- From: David W. Morris <dwm@xpasc.com>
- Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 09:47:15 -0700 (PDT)
- To: Scott Lawrence <lawrence@agranat.com>
- cc: "Nottingham, Mark (Australia)" <mark_nottingham@exchange.au.ml.com>, http-wg@hplb.hpl.hp.com
On Wed, 21 Jul 1999, Scott Lawrence wrote: > > From: Nottingham, Mark (Australia) > > > In 14.9.3, > > [...] > > 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-cacheable in order to > > retain compatibility with HTTP/1.0 servers. > > > > Would it be safe to assume 'non-cacheable' can be interpreted as 'stale' > > here? (everything else says it is) > > I usually use 'stale' to mean something that it was ok to cache for some > amount of time, but that time has passed, so it is no longer ok to use the > cached copy. 'non-cacheable' means that it should not get into the cache at > all. I agree ... 'non-cacheable' is supposed to preclude any possibility that the data would be found in a cache and in particular a disk cache where it might be examined. 'non-cacheable' is supposed to mean that it would never be valid for a caching proxy to return in response to a request. No second guessing, ever. Dave Morris
Received on Wednesday, 21 July 1999 09:53:10 UTC