On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 1:20 PM, Bjarne <[email protected]> wrote: > On 12/01/2011 09:18 PM, Christian Biesinger wrote: >> On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 3:53 PM, Bjarne<[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> >>> It doesn't seem like we handle "no-store" on requests >>> - do we want to do that? (Rfc2616 explicitly allows it.) >> >> >> Keep in mind that RFC 2616 often means proxy servers when it talks >> about caches. I don't think it makes any sense to let necko handle a >> Cache-Control request header, because this will be application >> generated, and the INHIBIT_CACHING header is a much easier way to >> specify that. Do you have any specific use case for this in mind? > > > By "application-generated" I assume you mean the necko-client? > > I was thinking about using it from content on an XmlHttpRequest. > Cannot point to a concrete application, but I can imagine that > it may be useful for a web-developer to ensure a resource is > not cached..?
True, for XMLHttpRequest this could be useful. Heh, I just found https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=428916 again, which I have failed to review for way too long :/ -christian _______________________________________________ dev-tech-network mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-tech-network
