- From: Stefan Eissing <stefan.eissing@greenbytes.de>
- Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2016 08:02:10 +0100
- To: Kazuho Oku <kazuhooku@gmail.com>
- Cc: Alcides Viamontes E <alcidesv@zunzun.se>, Mike Bishop <Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com>, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Is PUSHing a HEAD request, unconditional, not what you are looking for? > Am 10.02.2016 um 02:50 schrieb Kazuho Oku <kazuhooku@gmail.com>: > > Hi, > > 2016-02-09 20:46 GMT+09:00 Alcides Viamontes E <alcidesv@zunzun.se>: >>>> Not something that we've implemented yet, but it's a valid scenario. >> >> Pushing 304 works both in Chrome and Firefox: >> https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B2F2m0rSqGCVWFJnTzRWOWFWQmc , we have been >> doing it for some time. > > My understanding is that handling of pushed 304 in Chrome and Firefox > is unreliable. > > When sending a push, a server cannot be 100% certain if the client has > the resource cached. In other words, there is always a possibility > that the pushed response will be considered as a response to a > non-conditional HTTP request on the client side. > > In other words, browsers that support 304 push should, when matching a > pushed 304 response against a HTTP request, check that the request is > conditional, and use the pushed response only if the request was > conditional (additional checks might be necessary). Otherwise, the > pushed 304 request must be ignored, and the browser should pull the > unconditional HTTP request. > > However, my understanding is that both Chrome (48.0.2564.103) and > Firefox (44.0.1) don't do the check; they consider pushed 304 > responses to be a response to a unconditional HTTP request. > Therefore, there is a chance that you would fail to deliver the > correct content if you use 304 push today. > > -- > Kazuho Oku >
Received on Wednesday, 10 February 2016 07:02:48 UTC