> On 8 Apr 2015, at 2:33 pm, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl> wrote: > >> I'd be happy to work on some proposals to fix that, if you're amenable. > > Sure. It seems to me though that if it's not in the cache you make > network fetch and only then can you handle 304. But I guess that could > be more tightly coupled than say, redirects, although it seems > somewhat odd. You only get a 304 (legitimately) when you send a conditional request, and the browser will only send a conditional request when it has something in cache — but that thing is stale (hence the conditional request). If the client-side code is generating the conditional request and trying to handle the 304 themselves, yes it's a problem (and IIRC we left that as unsolveable last time around). >> Not sure what's new here — every browser I tested passed the core of that suite. > > Well that certainly argues for changing the specification. Is there > overlap in the tests they don't pass? IIRC it was the stuff you asked me to add around Access-Control-Expose-Headers. Cheers, -- Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/Received on Wednesday, 8 April 2015 04:41:47 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 23 October 2017 14:54:12 UTC