- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 11:26:02 +1000
- To: Jamie Lokier <jamie@shareable.org>
- Cc: Bil Corry <bil@corry.biz>, Henrik Nordstrom <henrik@henriknordstrom.net>, yngve@opera.com, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
I'm going to push back on that a bit. I'd put forth that any browser that doesn't understand Cache-Control: no-store is also not going to do Ajax (because it'll lack XmlHttpRequest), isn't going to have what people today consider a usable JS implementation, etc. CC has been around for a *long* time. I'm in the midst of putting together some tools to get some metrics off of implementations ATM... Cheers, On 25/06/2009, at 10:46 AM, Jamie Lokier wrote: > This is what I've found, for the paranoid: > > Pragma: no-cache > Cache-Control: no-cache,max-age=0,must-revalidate,pre- > check=0,post-check=0 > Expires: VERY-OLD-DATE > > The apparently redundant fields are in case of implementations which > don't understand, or don't correctly implement, the other fields. > > There's probably a browser out there which doesn't understand > "Cache-Control: no-cache,..." when there's anything else on the same > line. IE had a reputation for being a bit rigid in how it recognises > some headers. But I'm pretty sure anything like that will recognise > "Pragma: no-cache" so it doesn't matter. -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Thursday, 25 June 2009 01:26:44 UTC