- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2010 13:22:17 +1100
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Henrik Nordstrom <henrik@henriknordstrom.net>, Brian Smith <brian@briansmith.org>
The intent was that it replace the third and forth paragraphs there ('existing text'), but looking at it, I think there's a pretty strong argument to
1) remove the second paragraph, and
2) remove the note
Thoughts? This isn't a small change, but it does align with current practice, is for purposes of security, and doesn't make any currently conformant implementations non-conformant, AFAICT.
On 07/01/2010, at 2:23 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
> Mark Nottingham wrote:
>> Revised proposal:
>> """
>> The freshness model [ref] does not necessarily apply to history mechanisms. I.e., a history mechanism can display a previous representation even if it has expired.
>> This does not prohibit the history mechanism from telling the user that a
>> view might be stale, or from honoring cache directives (e.g., Cache-Control: no-store).
>> """
>> ...
>
> Sounds good to me... where should this go? P6, Section 4? Does it replace text over there or does it just add to it?
>
> Best regards, Julian
--
Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Tuesday, 19 January 2010 02:22:49 UTC