- From: Anne van Kesteren <notifications@github.com>
- Date: Thu, 02 May 2019 16:05:29 +0000 (UTC)
- To: whatwg/fetch <fetch@noreply.github.com>
- Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Received on Thursday, 2 May 2019 16:06:00 UTC
annevk commented on this pull request. > + "<code>no-cache</code>". + + <li><p>Set <var>revalidateRequest</var>'s + <a for=request>prevent no-cache cache-control header modification flag</a>. + + <li><p>Set <var>revalidateRequest</var>'s <a for=request>service-workers mode</a> set to + "<code>none</code>". + + <li> + <p><a>In parallel</a>, perform <a for=main>main fetch</a> using + <var>revalidateRequest</var>. + + <p class=note>This fetch is only meant to update the state of the HTTP cache and the + response will be unused until another cache access. The stale response will be used as the + response to current request. This fetch is issued in the context of a client so if it goes + away the request will be terminated. I'm not sure as I don't understand the constraints well enough. But I think I do understand things to the point where the above exchange ends up being contradictory, as I tried to point out. Was it unclear that the fetch algorithm governs all fetches, not just those made by `fetch()`? -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/whatwg/fetch/pull/853#discussion_r280489684
Received on Thursday, 2 May 2019 16:06:00 UTC