- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 22:17:37 +0000 (UTC)
- To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Cc: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, "WAF WG (public)" <public-appformats@w3.org>
On Fri, 19 Oct 2007, Anne van Kesteren wrote: > > As for the questions: > > 1. Would the first reply be cached if it did not allow access (did not have > Access-Control/<?access-control?>)? > > 2. Would the first reply be cached if the desired method was not listed in > Allow? > > 3. Would it remain cached if the second reply did not allow access? For all of these I would say "no", because the overwhelmingly common case where access is denied is when a developer is implementing an app that goes cross-site, and until the cross-site request works, the developer will be tweaking the code. If it is cached, the developer will have to flush the cache between each test attempt. I see no advantage to caching these; they are the exceptional case, so you shouldn't gain much (in terms of performance) from caching the reply. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Friday, 19 October 2007 22:17:49 UTC