- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: 2009年10月14日 17:35:18 +1100
- To: Brian Smith <brian@briansmith.org>
- Cc: "'HTTP Working Group'" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
- Message-Id: <C0AD1FC6-83CC-47CF-A614-A9A8C91A4045@mnot.net>
POST caching is still a work in progress; p6 now accommodates it, but we haven't yet modified the definition of POST itself. Stay tuned... WRT 302 / 307 / 303 -- the use of the term 'cacheable' is cloudy here, but otherwise it's pretty straightforward; are you just looking for them to reference the header definitions or p6 in general? On 13/10/2009, at 12:22 PM, Brian Smith wrote: > What, precisely, must the Cache-Control or Expires header fields > contain in > order to make a response to a POST, a 302 response, a 303 response, > or a 307 > response cacheable? This seems to not be specified anywhere in the > specification. > > The definition of POST says: "Responses to this method are not > cacheable, > unless the response includes appropriate Cache-Control or Expires > header > fields." > > The definitions of 302 Found and 307 Temporary Redirect both say: > "This > response is only cacheable if indicated by a Cache-Control or > Expires header > field." > > The definition of 303 See Other says: "Response SHOULD NOT be cached > unless > it is indicated as cacheable by Cache-Control or Expires header > fields." > > Thanks, > Brian > > -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Wednesday, 14 October 2009 06:35:50 UTC