- From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
- Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2010 22:31:25 -0700
- To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Cc: "Moore, Jonathan" <jonathan_moore@comcast.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Oct 17, 2010, at 9:28 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote: > Roy, what's your precise definition of successful? 2xx, or 2xx + 3xx? > > E.g., 303 See Other seems like it's squarely within the intent of cache invalidation, since Location is included. Note that this is just for invalidation of an existing cached response to a prior GET upon receiving a state-changing request for the same URI. For example, in the case GET /x --> 200 with form to fill out POST /x --> 303 to /y I would not expect the first GET to be invalidated by the 303 even if the 303 is marked cacheable. I think we should keep in mind that this requirement is just an optimization for authoring clients. We don't need to cover every possible case. ....Roy
Received on Monday, 18 October 2010 05:31:54 UTC