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

On May 4, 2011, at 5:39 AM, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> On 04/05/2011, at 9:03 PM, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
>> In message <>, 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.

That is what Cache-Control was intended to do.  It replaced Pragma.
If Pragma isn't ignored when CC is present then refinements to its
behavior can't be implemented via CC extensions.


Received on Wednesday, 4 May 2011 23:21:58 UTC