- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Sat, 19 Sep 2009 18:47:40 +1000
- To: Henrik Nordstrom <henrik@henriknordstrom.net>
- Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 18/09/2009, at 8:55 AM, Henrik Nordstrom wrote: > tor 2009-09-17 klockan 12:03 +1000 skrev Mark Nottingham: > >> This is vague; the wording here implies that the history list has the >> same >> store as the cache, even though they are almost always implemented >> separately, as the history list needs to incorporate browser-side >> state as >> well as resource state. > > Does it? Many implementations do, yes. > > Are we talking about the note at the end of 13.13? To me that note is > there to explain why history list SHOULD NOT be the same as cache... yes. >> 1. CC: no-store (and possibly other) directives apply to history >> lists as >> well, or > > I think only no-store is relevant there.. Expiration and > revalidation is > as specified not relevant to history lists. yes > >> 2. Some other history-specific directives need to be minted (out of >> scope >> for HTTPbis, but it can be discussed on-list) > > no-store should be quite sufficient imho. I'm inclined to agree, although AIUI some of the browser vendors are also paying attention to various combinations of no-cache / must- revalidate / max-age=0. It would be good if we could engage with them to discuss. > > respecting max-age=0 in history lists would be very annoying, and > inconsistent if handled very much different from max-age=1. agreed > > but on the other hand most browsers do not implement history lists > exactly as specified, but instead do load much content from cache when > navigating the history and often even respect expiration. To some degree, yes, but that doesn't prevent us from trying to improve the situation. -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Monday, 21 September 2009 01:37:35 UTC