RE: ACTION-845 - Finalize information on caching concept, nowlive, and contribute it to the list

Hi Dom,

I think what is different here is who is doing what.

We were having problems getting Browser to do what they should, specifically the IE.
It was not issuing a HEAD request when you would expect it too.

While you are correct, with all things being done correctly, you would simply expect the behavior listed.
However, if a proxy is not configured the IE requests the full content everytime, resulting constantly in 200 response code.

As such the behavior listed below simply confirms that the browser acted correctly.

Does that answer your question?

-- Kai

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dominique Hazael-Massieux [mailto:dom@w3.org] 
> Sent: Friday, September 12, 2008 3:19 PM
> To: Scheppe, Kai-Dietrich
> Cc: public-bpwg@w3.org
> Subject: Re: ACTION-845 - Finalize information on caching 
> concept, nowlive, and contribute it to the list
> 
> Le vendredi 12 septembre 2008 à 14:33 +0200, Scheppe, Kai-Dietrich a 
> > FF and Opera:
> >  
> > Correct behavior, irrespective if a proxy was configured or not.
> >       * response code 200 if a file was new or modified
> >       * response code 304 if unmodifed.
> 
> I think this behavior is independent of whether you use an 
> access-based or modification-based setting. Basically, it 
> should only depends on whether the resource is served with a 
> Last-Modified header (or an ETag), which itself appears in 
> Apache as soon as mod_expires is enabled (ExpiresActive On + 
> ExpiresDefault ...).
> 
> (but maybe I misunderstood what you were suggesting...)
> 
> Dom
> 
> 
>

Received on Monday, 15 September 2008 06:52:27 UTC