W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2012

Re: WGLC #353: Multiple Values in Cache-Control headers

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2012 20:06:39 +1000
Cc: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <4E84872F-8FD0-4794-91D4-E58F858F5793@mnot.net>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>

On 08/06/2012, at 7:57 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:

> On 2012-06-08 09:30, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>> Revised proposal, based upon discussion:
>>> Add a note to <https://svn.tools.ietf.org/svn/wg/httpbis/draft-ietf-httpbis/latest/p6-cache.html#calculating.freshness.lifetime>:
>>> """
>>> When there is more than one value present for a given directive (e.g., two Expires headers, multiple Cache-Control: max-age directives), it is considered invalid. Caches SHOULD consider responses that have invalid freshness information to be stale.
>>> """
>> Any further comments? Otherwise we'll close and incorporate.
>> ...
> Would it make sense to have generic text in the definition of Cache-Control about this?

Don't think so, because...

> Does the "must have a single value" rule apply to all directives?

No; I've seen examples that use multiple values (can't remember what ATM)

> Can the definition of error recovery diverge per directive?

I imagine so.

Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Friday, 8 June 2012 10:07:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:00 UTC