On 02/06/2010, at 9:00 AM, toki...@aol.com wrote:
Sergey wrote...
That's new to me that browsers don't cache stuff that has Vary only on
Accept-Encoding - can you post some statistics or describe the test you ran?
Test results and statistics...
Apache DEV forum...
Mark Nottingham wrote...
On 02/06/2010, at 9:00 AM, toki...@aol.com wrote:
Sergey wrote...
That's new to me that browsers don't cache stuff that has Vary only on
Accept-Encoding - can you post some statistics or describe the test you
ran?
Test results and statistics...
On 04/06/2010, at 6:51 PM, toki...@aol.com wrote:
I think you need to do a reboot on your definition of 'anecdotal'.
Good for you.
The thread above was a focused discussion about what ACTUALLY
happens if you try to 'Vary:' on 'User-Agent' in the real world
these days accompanied by some
On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 2:18 AM, Mark Nottingham m...@mnot.net wrote:
[...]
It's not a bug in the implementations, it's a grey area in 2616 that HTTPbis
has since worked to resolve;
http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/147
By my reading of the attachments in that ticket, servers
-Original Message-
From: Brian Pane [mailto:brianp...@gmail.com]
Sent: Freitag, 4. Juni 2010 14:39
To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Subject: Re: canned deflate conf in manual -- time to drop
the NS4/vary?
On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 2:18 AM, Mark Nottingham m...@mnot.net wrote:
[...]
On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 6:10 AM, Plüm, Rüdiger, VF-Group
ruediger.pl...@vodafone.com wrote:
[...]
Isn't that what Transfer-Encoding is designed for?
Yes, and in fact if we were talking about a brand new protocol, I'd
probably argue in favor of putting the compression specifier in the
Changing the semantics of Accept-Encoding / Content-Encoding is likely out of
scope for HTTPbis; I have a hard time believing it wouldn't make existing
implementations non-conformant, which we can really only do if there's a
serious security or interoperability concern.
OTOH I think it would
Yeah, it should only Vary on Accept-encoding (already does). It's still not
perfect, but at least it doesn't blow up proxies too much.
The question to people with statistics - are there any other issues with
gzip/proxy configurations?
Sergey
On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 11:01 AM, Eric
Don't forget the ongoing issue that if you ONLY vary on 'Accept-Encoding'
then almost ALL browsers will then refuse to cache a response entity LOCALLY
and the pain factor moves directly to the Proxy/Content Server(s).
If you vary on 'User-Agent' ( No longer reasonable because of the abuse
of
On Tue, 01 Jun 2010 17:44:41 -0400
toki...@aol.com wrote:
Don't forget the ongoing issue that if you ONLY vary on 'Accept-Encoding'
then almost ALL browsers will then refuse to cache a response entity LOCALLY
Really? That sounds bizarre! Do you have a reference for it?
--
Nick Kew
Sergey wrote...
That's new to me that browsers don't cache stuff that has Vary only on
Accept-Encoding - can you post some statistics or describe the test you ran?
Test results and statistics...
Apache DEV forum...
11 matches
Mail list logo
