Re: [wmlprogramming] Re: no-transform and the role of W3C

Yes, this was picked up at last call and it was pointed out that to 
insist on this is an extension of HTTP. It is no longer in the present 
draft (indeed all reference to normative server behavior has been 
removed, though a faint echo of the no-transform sentiment remains at:

http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/CT/editors-drafts/Guidelines/081107#sec-cache-control-no-transform

under:

D Informative Guidance for Origin Servers (Non-Normative)

[did I mention it isn't normative?]

Jo

On 15/12/2008 20:30, Tom Hume wrote:
> (crossposted to public-bpwg-ct & wmlprogramming)
> 
> Gotcha. That'll be why CTG insists that servers stick a no-transform 
> onto any response whose request had one[1]. Tho, hmm, this conflicts 
> with section 14.9 of RFC 2616, which says that cache-control should be 
> unidirectional:
> 
>> Cache directives are unidirectional in that the presence
>>    of a directive in a request does not imply that the same directive is
>>    to be given in the response.
> 
> I'm not sure I get how these two statements are compatible. Can anyone 
> from the BPWG throw any light onto this?
> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/ct-guidelines/#sec-cache-control-no-transform
> 
> On 15 Dec 2008, at 19:43, casays wrote:
> 
>> > But if the JavaScript libraries stick a no-transform on the
>> > request (which they could do) then there should be nothing required
>> > server-side?
>>
>> Stricly speaking, no. The no-transform directive applies to one 
>> specific part of the HTTP transaction under consideration: either the 
>> request, or the response. It is not an HTTP-transaction-wide (i.e. 
>> the couple request-response) parameter.
> 
> --
> Future Platforms Ltd
> e: Tom.Hume@futureplatforms.com <mailto:Tom.Hume@futureplatforms.com>
> t: +44 (0) 1273 819038
> m: +44 (0) 7971 781422
> company: www.futureplatforms.com <http://www.futureplatforms.com>
> personal: tomhume.org
> 
> 
>

Received on Monday, 15 December 2008 21:59:51 UTC