Re: Issues-list item "CACHING-CGI"

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: Arthur Bierer: "RE: 301/302"
• Previous message: Ben Laurie: "Re: 301/302"
• In reply to: Jim Gettys: "Issues-list item "CACHING-CGI""
• Next in thread: Jim Gettys: "Re: Issues-list item "CACHING-CGI""
• Reply: Jim Gettys: "Re: Issues-list item "CACHING-CGI""

Jim Gettys:
>

>he following got dropped on the floor, but for good cleanlyness
>reasons, I'm sending it to the list in case someone has some problem with
>declaring it closed, as it was marked otherwise in the issues list.

Hi Jim,

Yes, I have a problem with marking this issue as closed, so please
don't mark it as closed.

Like Roy, I am opposed to the wording:

> A cache MUST NOT assign a heuristic expiration time to a
> response for a URL that includes the strings "htbin", "cgi-bin", or
> "?" in its rel_path part. 

The strongest wording I would support here would be `A cache should
[lowercase!] be careful in assigning ...'.


>                                - Jim Gettys

Koen.

• Next message: Arthur Bierer: "RE: 301/302"
• Previous message: Ben Laurie: "Re: 301/302"
• In reply to: Jim Gettys: "Issues-list item "CACHING-CGI""
• Next in thread: Jim Gettys: "Re: Issues-list item "CACHING-CGI""
• Reply: Jim Gettys: "Re: Issues-list item "CACHING-CGI""