On 28/05/2009, at 1:31 AM, Brian Smith wrote: > Thomas Broyer wrote: >> Brian Smith <brian@briansmith.org> wrote: >>> It's not invalid, but it doesn't mean anything. POST responses are >>> never cacheable; caches must write POST requests through to the >>> server, and a cache can't use a POST response to respond to a >>> GET/HEAD request. 2616 says: > Responses to this method are not cacheable, unless the response > includes appropriate Cache-Control or Expires header fields. >> Even when the POST response has a Content-Location? > > There's nothing in RFC2616 or the latest HTTPbis drafts that says a > cached POST response can be returned in response to a GET/HEAD > request. No, but there is accommodation for it; see p6 2.1 and 2.2, in particular the TODO note in the latter. > Applying Postel's rule, a cache shouldn't return a cached POST > response to a GET/HEAD request, and servers shouldn't include Cache- > Control/Expires headers in POST responses. That should be explicit > in the specification. There has been considerable discussion on this, and your conclusion wasn't suggested AFAIK, nor was it the direction we've chosen to move in. See: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/139 http://www.w3.org/mid/08345F97-7D4D-40AD-98E2- EF73E93C031F@mnot.net (entire thread) -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/Received on Tuesday, 2 June 2009 04:01:00 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 2 February 2023 18:43:19 UTC