- From: Adrien de Croy <adrien@qbik.com>
- Date: Tue, 26 May 2009 08:28:50 +1200
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- CC: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Sorry, I hadn't reviewed the HTTPbis work. So at that stage the question was more to the point of is it acceptable to mix the directives or not, and whether that was intended. If it's covered in HTTPbis, then my question is answered, I have looked through HTTPBis, but it's still not quite at a stage to use it for implementation (lots of outstanding To-dos in there), so I didn't go through the Cache-Control sections. Thanks Adrien Julian Reschke wrote: > Adrien de Croy wrote: >> 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. > > ... > > Yes. So how is RFC2616 relevant anymore, if we have already done what > you asked for? > > Me confused... > > Best regards, Julian > > -- Adrien de Croy - WinGate Proxy Server - http://www.wingate.com
Received on Monday, 25 May 2009 20:26:15 UTC