- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Fri, 27 May 2011 14:43:24 +1000
- To: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Incorporated in <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/changeset/1291>. On 20/05/2011, at 12:59 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote: > <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/291> > > A simple way to deal with this is to add a note at the end of both 2.1 and 2.2 with a reference to the cache-control extensions section, e.g., > > "Note that any of the listed requirements above can be overridden by the presence of a cache-control extension; see [ref]." > > > However, this would have a few interesting side effects; > > 1) It would allow Cache-Control extensions to override the "core" cacheability requirements, e.g., matching the request-URI, status code cacheability. > > 2) It would potentially allow Cache-Control request extensions to override "hard" requirements (e.g., no-store, no-cache) from the server, if implemented. > > > Personally -- I don't see much harm (and perhaps some interesting use cases) in #1, at least for response cache-control. > > I'm less sure about #2, but we've had a note in the spec that we don't specify how request and response CC interact for a while, so I'll just open that as a separate issue (#293). > > Thoughts? > > Cheers, > > > -- > Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/ > > > > -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Friday, 27 May 2011 04:43:50 UTC