W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webappsec@w3.org > December 2013

Re: CORS and 304

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2013 10:38:24 +1100
Cc: "Hill, Brad" <bhill@paypal.com>, Karl Dubost <karl@la-grange.net>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>, "Julian F. Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Odin HÝrthe Omdal <odinho@opera.com>, WebAppSec WG <public-webappsec@w3.org>, Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com>
Message-Id: <0B421B5E-DD2E-4AA8-9467-E9749141F951@mnot.net>
To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>

Why is a 304 being returned for OPTIONS?


On 5 Dec 2013, at 10:36 am, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote:

> 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

Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Wednesday, 4 December 2013 23:38:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:54:35 UTC