On Sat, 18 Oct 2003, Jerry G. Chiuan wrote:

> So, the purpose of not only using "Pragma: no-cache" but also
> "Cache-control: no-cache" is in case certain proxy/server is not *100%*
> HTTP/1.1 compliant.

That's how I interpret it, yes.

> Therefore, they only recognize "Cache-control: no-cache", but "Pragma:
> no-cache"? If that was the case, sound pretty wierd since they don't obey
> backward-compatibility #$%@&...

If the standard says SHOULD, then I think that mandates a client to do so.
Even if you in most cases can get away with doing it differently.

-- 
 Daniel Stenberg -- curl: been grokking URLs since 1998
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email sponsored by: Enterprise Linux Forum Conference & Expo
The Event For Linux Datacenter Solutions & Strategies in The Enterprise 
Linux in the Boardroom; in the Front Office; & in the Server Room 
http://www.enterpriselinuxforum.com