Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

duplicate pasted text in s-maxage #264

Open
royfielding opened this issue Nov 12, 2019 · 3 comments
Open

duplicate pasted text in s-maxage #264

royfielding opened this issue Nov 12, 2019 · 3 comments

Comments

@royfielding
Copy link
Member

@royfielding royfielding commented Nov 12, 2019

The commit d4695a3 for #161 added a paragraph to s-maxage that contains the directive must-revalidate. I think this was supposed to say s-maxage and worded for shared caches?

royfielding added a commit that referenced this issue Nov 22, 2019
fix #264 must-revalidate paste-o
reschke added a commit that referenced this issue Nov 22, 2019
@mnot

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

@mnot mnot commented Nov 25, 2019

Sorry, been travelling.

This was intentional (although I forgot to update the directive name). s-maxage implies proxy-revalidate, which implies must-revalidate. That seems like a lot of indirection in the definition.

I agree this wasn't a great way to do it, though. I think the options are:

  1. Leave it as is (i.e., two levels of indirection).
  2. Leave it as is, but use linking more explicitly so that the indirections can be followed more easily (at least in HTML renderings).
  3. Inline the appropriate text from must-revalidate into both proxy-revalidate and s-maxage.

I think those are ordered according to my preferences, least to most.

(I strongly suspect many people don't realise s-maxage has these semantics, because of it having a name similar to max-age. Making them inline rather than referenced might help)

@mnot mnot reopened this Nov 25, 2019
@royfielding

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member Author

@royfielding royfielding commented Nov 27, 2019

I agree with the conclusion, but am pretty sure that you meant to say s-maxage in that section defining s-maxage. That's all I changed, so it should be fine unless you wanted to add more text to explain why. I don't think it is necessary to explain more because adding s-maxage implies the server wants shared caches to reuse the response.

@mpdude

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

@mpdude mpdude commented Dec 3, 2019

To me, inlining the consequences was helpful in understanding the consequences. I have a suggestion for a slight rewording in this place in #269.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
3 participants
You can’t perform that action at this time.