On 01/21/2007 04:09 PM, Scott MacVicar wrote:
> > We did use mod_expires but the Expires header was being passed on to the > client, mod_headers didn't appear to be able to unset this during tests. This is true, but what is the problem with passing the Expires header to the client? If you want to prevent the clients from requesting / revalidating the resource frequently you can simply set an expiration date far in the future (about a year). > The reason for our desire to cache is that a version number is used in > the query string and incremented when appropriate on the resource. So from my limited understanding of your environment it seems to make sense to set a long expiration time on this resource as a new version of a response will have a different query string. > > Most browsers seem to ignore RFC2616 13.9 in regards to the query string > being present in the URI. What do you mean by this? That browsers cache the response even if no Expires header is present in the response? > > Apologies for not getting the gist of the thread. No need to apologize at all for contributing to this discussion. Regards Rüdiger
