Re: #312: should there be a permanent variant of 307?

On 2011-11-04 15:21, Yves Lafon wrote:
> ...
>>> +0 -- not against it, not sure it's really necessary (but happy to
>>> put it in if that moves us forward).
>>> ...
>> I think *some* prose around this is useful, as otherwise the same
>> questions continue to come up again and again.
>> *If* we believe that the decorate-with-Cache-Control thingy works, we
>> should say so. If we do not, we could shorten the note.
> Well, caching a redirect is different than stating that it's permanent.

What observable difference would it make?

> The best thing we can do here would probably be to rename 307's reason
> phrase to "Proper Redirect" instead of "Temporary Redirect"...

Well, changing the reason phrase alone doesn't change the definition. Do 
you *want* to change the definition?

> Also an expiry far in time is still valid cache information, saying
> "over XX seconds, consider it as permanent" seems weird, at worst,
> introducing a 'permanent' Cache-Control might help (as it might help for
> other things than doing a "proper 301").

That sounds like a good idea on it's own; but I don't think we can 
squeeze that into the HTTPbis charter...

Best regards, Julian

Received on Friday, 4 November 2011 14:53:38 UTC