Re: Proposed HTTP SEARCH method update

So the context of this answer is in short the sentence 
"The response to a SEARCH request is not cacheable."

> On 18 Apr 2015, at 23:01, ashok malhotra <> wrote:
> Also. Henry, the response may be the location of the
> result set as in Example 4.2

True. But that does not really affect the cachability of the response does it? ( I am 
trying to wrap my head around this, so please consider these questions just a dialectical
method - in the Socratic sense - to see if we can understand this )

The 303 points to another document that itself can be cacheable. I suppose that would
in fact be the point of the 303 even, to give a URL for the specific query that can then
be re-used and sent around - and cached even.

So the 303 in SEARCH does not constitute evidence that SEARCH is not cacheable, just like a 303 in HTTP GET does not show that GET is not cacheable.

So now I wonder why it is that you think SEARCH results cannot be cached?
They may not be cacheable currently in existing caches, but I fail to see why with proper use
of etags, they should not be.


Social Web Architect

Received on Tuesday, 21 April 2015 20:33:56 UTC