Re: #290 [was: SHOULD-level requirements in p6-caching]

On 04/05/2011, at 9:03 PM, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:

> In message <783761BA-5934-4621-8908-9A13EE60FB90@mnot.net>, Mark Nottingham wri
> tes:
> 
>> So, I'm reluctant to repeat requirements, because we have good reason to =
>> believe that it makes the spec worse, not better.
> 
> I think simply adding:
> 
> 	If there is a Cache-Control header, the Pragma header is ignored.
> 
> Would clarify it even more.

That's not clarifying, that's changing.



--
Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/

Received on Wednesday, 4 May 2011 12:39:30 UTC