> 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.
> >
> >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 a proxy does not support "Pragma: no-cache" it has to ignore it.
> If a proxy does not support "Cache-control: no-cache" it has to ignore
> it as well.
> That's a principle of HTTP. So double effort couldn't do any harm (IMHO)?!
>
> Joerg M-T

Hi,
If RFC2616 *only* mentions proxy SHOULD treats "Pragma:" as
"Cache-control:", I would only use "Pragma:"
However, it not only mentions proxy SHOULD treats "Pragma:" as
"Cache-control:" but also client SHOULD send both flags.

Ya, it is hard to force everybody to 100% follow the standard, therefore RFC
just simply suggests both client and proxy to "do their best"

- Jerry

-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by OSDN developer relations
Here's your chance to show off your extensive product knowledge
We want to know what you know. Tell us and you have a chance to win $100
http://www.zoomerang.com/survey.zgi?HRPT1X3RYQNC5V4MLNSV3E54
Received on 2003-10-20