- From: Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2010 06:28:49 -0400 (EDT)
- To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Thu, 29 Jul 2010, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>
> 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.
My code mandates revalidation, so it conforms to p6, the modification in
p6 from "invalid" to "stale" is just to reflect what is in p2.
In a way, marking it stale makes more sense, serving content will happen
only if the cache can't revalidate, so if contacting the server is
impossible, and it is not worse than asking another cache that might have
the same outdated information.
If the server really don't want that to happen, must-revalidate is in
order.
--
Baroula que barouleras, au tiéu toujou t'entourneras.
~~Yves
Received on Thursday, 29 July 2010 10:28:50 UTC