- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2010 12:10:13 +0200
- To: Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>
- Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 29/07/2010, at 12:08 PM, Yves Lafon wrote: > > Just checked my implementation, and it marks it as stale, mandating revalidation. It is really up to implementation, so p2 should defer to p6 for the definition of what a cache should do in any case (to remove the current conflict), and let implementation decide. If you mandate revalidation, it's not just stale; it conforms to the p6 definition of invalidation. Calling it 'stale' will confuse matters. -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Thursday, 29 July 2010 10:10:44 UTC