- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 09:49:09 +0200
- To: Stefanos Harhalakis <v13@priest.com>
- CC: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Stefanos Harhalakis wrote: > On Friday 08 June 2007, Julian Reschke wrote: >> Stefanos Harhalakis wrote: >>> Just realized that caching proxies should consider documents that were >>> returned for different timezones as different. In other words, two >>> requests with different Timezone headers should be considered different. >>> This introduces an issue where two clients with different timezones ask >>> for a document. Either the cache need to record the request TZ or the >>> server side must return a header like 'Requested-Timezone' where the >>> request timezone would be included. >>> ... >> Vary: Timezone > > Thank you (and Henrik) about this. I didn't knew about the Vary header. I > added this to the draft. Since there was no further feedback I changed the > timezone string from POSIX to RFC3339 time-zone, as you suggested. > > I've some more questions: > > a) What is the proper procedure for working on this draft? Should this be > submitted by the WG instead of me? There is no WG (yet), and even if there would be one it probably wouldn't be in scope of the charter. But it *is* good to discuss it here. For instance, I'm not convinced it's the right approach; HTML5 is adding markup to allow user agents to do smarter things with time information. > b) I've added you to the Acknowledgement section. Is this correct or should > you be listed in the authors? No, that's fine. I just tryng to by helpful to get the format and the editorial issues right. Here's another one: I think currently the spec is not clear about whether it uses the RFC2616 or the RFC4234 ABNF format... > ... Best regards, Julian
Received on Monday, 11 June 2007 10:02:14 UTC