- From: Ben Maurer <ben.maurer@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2015 13:36:11 +0100
- To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Cc: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Received on Tuesday, 14 July 2015 12:36:40 UTC
On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 1:01 PM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote: > From time to time, we've had people ask for "Cache-Control: > Infinity-I-really-will-never-change-this." I suspect that often they don't > understand how caches work, and that assigning a one-year lifetime is more > than adequate for this purpose, but nevertheless, we could define that so > that it worked and gave you the semantics you want too. > > To keep it backwards compatible, you'd need something like: > > Cache-Control: max-age=31536000, static > > (or whatever we call it) > Static is a fairly reasonable name. Static does imply that the resource will *never* be revalidated (ever) vs the dont-reload which implies no revalidations prior to expiration. I don't have any preferences between the two but wanted to call that out. What's the next step here?
Received on Tuesday, 14 July 2015 12:36:40 UTC