Re: minimum-cache time?+

From: Dancer <>
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1996 01:13:57 +1000

James R Grinter wrote:
> Duane did add some support for cache-control, I think, after we pointed
> this problem out a while back; but I think basically its Microsoft that
> is broken/confused. They seem to be mixing up two versions of protocol
> responses in one go.

From recent experience trying to develop software that integrates with
their browser, I've developed the impression that Microsoft couldn't
follow a specification or a protocol if you tied them to it with a
length of chain. Even if it's their own specification. (I've just
implemented DDE communications with MSIE, and I can tell you now that
they failed to follow their own DDE spec)

> But my point is that overriding non-cache documents can be a big
> risk if they have personal information in them.

The best thing I think we can do is to do the right thing according to
the accepted standards, and if people have problems with Microsoft's
ways of dealing with them, then they can try someone else.

I don't think it's our place to try to make Microsoft's products work
properly. Leave that to the people who are paid for it. Let's just stick
with sensible treatment of the HTTP specifications, rather than spending
our energy working around poor implementations.

Received on Sun Oct 27 1996 - 07:21:58 MST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Tue Dec 09 2003 - 16:33:22 MST