Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-couchdb-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 63270 invoked from network); 19 Feb 2009 22:49:45 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.2) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 19 Feb 2009 22:49:45 -0000 Received: (qmail 65286 invoked by uid 500); 19 Feb 2009 22:49:45 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-couchdb-dev-archive@couchdb.apache.org Received: (qmail 64942 invoked by uid 500); 19 Feb 2009 22:49:44 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@couchdb.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: dev@couchdb.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@couchdb.apache.org Received: (qmail 64926 invoked by uid 99); 19 Feb 2009 22:49:44 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 19 Feb 2009 14:49:44 -0800 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=10.0 tests=SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [80.68.94.123] (HELO tumbolia.org) (80.68.94.123) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 19 Feb 2009 22:49:36 +0000 Received: from nslater by tumbolia.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1LaHhj-0003iM-FA for dev@couchdb.apache.org; Thu, 19 Feb 2009 22:49:15 +0000 Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2009 22:49:15 +0000 From: Noah Slater To: dev@couchdb.apache.org Subject: Re: Using HTTP headers Message-ID: <20090219224915.GL12851@tumbolia.org> Mail-Followup-To: dev@couchdb.apache.org References: <20090219171647.GC6359@tumbolia.org> <20090219181810.GE6359@tumbolia.org> <20090219202343.GG12851@tumbolia.org> <20090219223409.GK12851@tumbolia.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Noah: Awesome User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 05:46:20PM -0500, Paul Davis wrote: > My only real point is that the whole issue is rather gray and we > should look around to see if maybe there's already a proposed header > of similar intent. The cache control was just me trying to make the > point that this is mostly just the product of slight differences in > interpretation. As clearly demonstrated by the length and content of > the thread. :D I poked around the WebDAV RFC but found nothing of note. -- Noah Slater, http://tumbolia.org/nslater