[8332] in www-talk@info.cern.ch
Re: caching dilemma
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Koen Holtman)
Thu Jun 1 02:49:57 1995
Date: Tue, 30 May 1995 17:29:15 +0500
Errors-To: procmaster@www19.w3.org
Reply-To: koen@win.tue.nl
From: koen@win.tue.nl (Koen Holtman)
To: Multiple recipients of list <www-talk@www10.w3.org>
Kee Hinckley:
>Now if you want to argue that Redirect is for moved documents, and there
>should be a "NowGoHere" directive, I might be persuaded. But...
The draft http spec already defines both a Redirect and a NowGoHere.
The redirection code
301 Moved Permanently
signifies permanent redirection; clients are encouraged to remember
the it, and the code
302 Moved Temporarily
signifies a redirection that may be dynamic. The draft spec implies
that redirection information gotten in a 302 response may never be
cached, though I wonder how many clients conform to this part.
I've been writing on a draft spec commentary which suggests that the
expires header may be used to allow control cacheability of 302 (and
300) responses.
Koen.
