couchdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Curt Arnold <>
Subject Re: Call for objections releasing 0.10
Date Thu, 17 Sep 2009 05:05:08 GMT
Sorry about the bad quoting, somehow the message evaded my email client.

Paul Davis wrote:

>  I'm not really concerned with major user agents in terms of headers  
> we add. Most of those should be configured to do the right thing 99%  
> of the time regardless. The question is what would I do if I tried  
> implementing a client? Setting all of these caching headers may fix  
> popular browsers, but for those that want to speak raw HTTP it just  
> complicates the crap out of everything.

IE 6 can be reconfigured to use a different heuristic to determine  
whether a doc is stale and needs to be revalidated when there is not  
an explicit Expires or max_age.   IE 6's default behavior is  
documented (link in the bug report) and as far as I can tell is not  
invalid.  I don't see any explicit statement in the spec on what a  
client should assume for an expiry date when one is not provided by  
the server.   MS just decided something different than the other  
implementers.  It is not a desirable thing to try to convince a client  
that they need to change some advanced setting to get your app to work.

I do not see how providing a nearly universal HTTP 1.0 Header in the  
response would in anyway complicate any thing for someone writing  
their own HTTP stack.   It seems highly unlikely that any significant  
HTTP stack would be impacted by the addition of an explicit Expires  
header instead of the current reliance on an implied expiration.
> Just to be clear, its forbidden by the spec, but breaking compliance  
> to fix IE6 is something that should be considered.

What specifically are you saying is forbidden by the spec?  The  
preceding paragraph is talking about "Cache-Control: max-age=0" which  
I can't make any case for reading as forbidden by the spec.  It  
reduces the incidences of stale data, but still leaves a 1 second  
window at least in the browsers I've tested.

> > I'm convinced on custom headers.

I'm not sure how to interpret that statement.  I'd like to interpret  
as an willingness to consider for configurable headers.

View raw message