- From: Dominique Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 17:56:09 +0100
- To: public-bpwg <public-bpwg@w3.org>
Hi, I mentioned on the call today that it would probably be better to define the expected new values for the Cache-Control header as an informational RFC rather than inside our content transformation guidelines. As an example, Mark Nottingham has proposed 2 new values for the Cache-Control header, as explained on his blog: http://www.mnot.net/blog/2007/12/12/stale The corresponding internet drafts are at: http://www.mnot.net/drafts/draft-nottingham-http-stale-while-revalidate-00.txt and http://www.mnot.net/drafts/draft-nottingham-http-stale-if-error-00.txt While they don't concern the scope of what the content transformation guidelines are interested in, they could serve as very good templates should (some of) the group participants decide to pursue the IETF-way. Dom
Received on Thursday, 13 December 2007 16:56:38 UTC