Re: #197: Effect of CC directives on history lists

lör 2009-09-19 klockan 18:47 +1000 skrev Mark Nottingham:
> 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.

I meant the first part "the wording here implies..."

> > 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.

Agreed. But I vote that we focus on no-store for the spec writing for
now, until browser vendors give good arguments what is wrong with that.

But this part of the specifications should only be advisory and best
practice recommendation, giving browsers permission to bypass freshness
controls on accesses due to history navigation, not a strict requirement
on implementaitons to do exactly this.

> > respecting max-age=0 in history lists would be very annoying, and
> > inconsistent if handled very much different from max-age=1.
> agreed

Is there something missing in the existing wording on why expiration
preferably should not be respected in history navigation?


Received on Monday, 21 September 2009 11:09:46 UTC