Re: BNF for Cache-Control

Julian Reschke wrote:
> Adrien de Croy wrote:
>> I guess the answer lies in the wording around the directives 
>> themselves.  Some of them it's pretty clear are intended only for 
>> request messages, some for response messages.  Some are less clear, 
>> and the syntax for some differs between request and response (e.g 
>> no-cache).
> In case you didn't notice: those have been separated into distinct 
> subsections since draft 05.
you referring to the HTTPbis work?  I've been referring to RFC2616.

>> So one way to look at this would be that the grouping of directives 
>> into cache-request-directive and cache-response-directive are mainly 
>> to demonstrate which type of messages these directives are expected 
>> to be used in, without banning them from the other.
>> I guess a similar issue would arise in any header that could be part 
>> of a request or response message which contains directives which may 
>> or may not make sense for a request or a response (e.g. Connect).
>> In the end, I'm more than happy to ignore headers that don't make 
>> sense in the context, but specific wording in the spec to back those 
>> decisions up would be useful.
> The descriptions already should clearly say "general", "request", 
> "response", or "entity"...

sorry, I meant ignore cache directives (not headers) that don't make 
sense in the context - as you were suggesting.  I just didn't want to 
create problems in case some server sent some directive that looked like 
a request directive, and I'd predetermined to ignore it.



> Do you think that is not sufficient? Maybe you could clarify, based on 
> a concrete example?
> BR, Julian

Adrien de Croy - WinGate Proxy Server -

Received on Monday, 25 May 2009 07:29:21 UTC