- From: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>
- Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2012 00:10:43 +1200
- To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On 8/06/2012 10:15 p.m., Julian Reschke wrote: > On 2012-06-08 12:06, Mark Nottingham wrote: >> >> 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) > > If that is the case, we probably need to spend some more time on > clarifying this, as this different from similar header fields. > >>> Can the definition of error recovery diverge per directive? >> >> I imagine so. > > Which makes it sound as if we should define it for all directives > defined in this spec (as bad as this sounds)... > > Best regards, Julian > Or with a blanket to cover the generic "safe" erro rhandlign of dropping something. ie I would imagine duplicate identical controls it would be harmless to drop duplicates before interpreting the controls. And a specific mention of anythign special for those directives with parameter values. Which face a more difficult time resolving multiples and non-duplicate values. AYJ
Received on Friday, 8 June 2012 12:11:24 UTC