This sounds like a reasonable idea to me. I agree that .pagespeed. URLs are a good candidate for this, as long as the hash is matching and therefore we are sending 1-year caching directives.
However I'm confused why about why revalidation would be needed in such cases, even without 'immutable', unless the item has been in cache for >1 year. On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 3:33 PM, Otto van der Schaaf <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi all, > > I wanted to discuss emitting the "immutable" cache-control directive in > responses for requests to .pagespeed. urls. > > After reading up on this fairly new cache-control directive, think we may > be able to avoid revalidations by doing so. > The RFC mentions versioned urls as a candidate for doing this, which I > think also includes our fingerprinted .pagespeed. urls > (these have a hash that changes when any of the underlying resources > change) > > Rough implementation: > https://github.com/pagespeed/mod_pagespeed/compare/oschaaf- > cc-immutable?expand=1 > > Context: > https://hacks.mozilla.org/2017/01/using-immutable- > caching-to-speed-up-the-web/ > https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8246 > > Would love to hear thoughts on this! > > Otto >
