- From: Nick Kew <nick@webthing.com>
- Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 21:41:42 +0100 (BST)
- To: Mikael Lind <z94lind@mtek.chalmers.se>
- cc: <www-validator@w3.org>, <ot@w3.mag.keio.ac.jp>
On Wed, 10 Jul 2002, Mikael Lind wrote: > site. For convenience, I link to the validator using > <http://validator.w3.org/check/referer>. The problem with this is > that the validator results are cached within my browser (I use Opera > 6.04 for Windows 98), meaning that I get outdated results, and > somtimes results for the wrong page. Have you considered adding a > HTTP Expire header? I searched the list archives for "expire" and > found this post: Cacheability of validator results is a Good Thing. Unfortunately, in the case you describe, it is also a Bad Thing. As a point that may be of more academic than practical relevance, the correct behaviour of /check/referer would be not to mess about with Expires headers, nor even to restrict cacheing with cache-control, but to make it clear that content negotiation is happening based on the HTTP Referer header. In other words, it should include "Referer" in a Vary: response header. > -- > I wished for 4 uncursed scrolls of gold detection > and all I got was this lousy .signature On a pedantic note, that's not a valid .sig. -- Nick Kew Available for contract work - Programming, Unix, Networking, Markup, etc.
Received on Wednesday, 10 July 2002 16:42:01 UTC