- From: <stefan.eissing@greenbytes.de>
- Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2008 09:37:01 +0100 (CET)
- To: "Henrik Nordstrom" <henrik@henriknordstrom.net>
- Cc: "Mark Nottingham" <mnot@mnot.net>, "HTTP Working Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
> On fre, 2008-11-14 at 19:11 -0800, Mark Nottingham wrote: >> RFC2616 does not clearly define what the relationship of the request >> method is to caching. In particular, does the method form part of the >> cache key? > > As already discussed extensively: no. > >> [...] > Indeed. > > My proposal is to make the URI-only GET/HEAD cache model more explicit, > so future protocol additions hopefully do not fall into the same trap of > inventing new GET-type methods like WebDAV did.. I think everyone agrees nowadays that side-effect free reading should be done with GET. (If WebDAV comes up as a a bad example all the time in these discussions, it is because it almost got things right. Other protocols which nearly got everything-* wrong, will not be remembered). I like Henriks approach because it keeps things easy to understand, which is a prerequisite to easy to implement. And caches deployed on the net with inconsistent behaviour in edge cases have always been a pain. //Stefan
Received on Monday, 17 November 2008 08:36:04 UTC