- From: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
- Date: Wed, 4 May 2011 14:57:28 +0200
- To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
- Cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Hi Poul-Henning, On Wed, May 04, 2011 at 11:03:44AM +0000, 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. It's different. If we declare that Pragma: no-cache is equivalent to CC: no-cache, then we simply address conflicts the same way we address them when multiple CC headers are set. If you currently know how you deal with two conflicting CC headers, then you can apply the same method to a CC and a Pragma (eg: probably that the pragma can win under some circumstances). Hoping this helps, Willy
Received on Wednesday, 4 May 2011 12:57:58 UTC