- From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2013 15:36:00 -0800
- To: "Hill, Brad" <bhill@paypal.com>
- Cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Karl Dubost <karl@la-grange.net>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Odin Hørthe Omdal <odinho@opera.com>, WebAppSec WG <public-webappsec@w3.org>, Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com>
On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 3:24 PM, Hill, Brad <bhill@paypal.com> wrote: > We still have the case where the headers indicating validity to the cache may give a longer lifetime than a supplied Access-Control-Max-Age. In such cases, I would argue that regenerating the Access-Control headers is part of providing correct caching and validity information to the client, and therefore they SHOULD be included with a 304. Access-Control-Max-Age only applies to OPTIONS responses which I didn't think could ever be cached? / Jonas
Received on Wednesday, 4 December 2013 23:36:58 UTC