- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2010 19:02:01 +0100
- To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- CC: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Henrik Nordstrom <henrik@henriknordstrom.net>, Brian Smith <brian@briansmith.org>
Mark Nottingham wrote:
> 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.
This will reduce Section 4 to:
4. History Lists
User agents often have history mechanisms, such as "Back" buttons and
history lists, that can be used to redisplay an entity retrieved
earlier in a session.
The freshness model (Section 2.3) 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).
(see <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/attachment/ticket/197/>)
Best regards, Julian
Received on Tuesday, 19 January 2010 18:02:40 UTC