- From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2013 15:52:24 -0800
- To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- 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 Hørthe Omdal <odinho@opera.com>, WebAppSec WG <public-webappsec@w3.org>, Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com>
I don't think it is. I think the Access-Control-Max-Age issue is separate from the one that started this thread. / Jonas On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 3:38 PM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote: > Aha! > > Why is a 304 being returned for OPTIONS? > > Cheers, > > > 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 23:53:23 UTC