Opened 8 years ago
Closed 8 years ago
#27211 closed Bug (fixed)
Include HTTP-caching headers to "304 Not Modified" responses
Reported by: | Rinat Khabibiev | Owned by: | Rinat Khabibiev |
---|---|---|---|
Component: | HTTP handling | Version: | 1.10 |
Severity: | Normal | Keywords: | |
Cc: | Triage Stage: | Ready for checkin | |
Has patch: | yes | Needs documentation: | no |
Needs tests: | no | Patch needs improvement: | no |
Easy pickings: | no | UI/UX: | no |
Description (last modified by )
According to RFC7232 all "304 Not Modified" responses must include "Cache-Control" and "Expires" headers that would have been sent in a corresponding "200 OK" response.
Change History (7)
comment:1 by , 8 years ago
Component: | Core (Cache system) → HTTP handling |
---|
comment:2 by , 8 years ago
The server generating a 304 response MUST generate any of the
following header fields that would have been sent in a 200 (OK)
response to the same request: Cache-Control, Content-Location, Date,
ETag, Expires, and Vary.
Taken from RFC7232: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7232#section-4.1.
Usually responses with 200 code will include such headers (e.g. from views decorated with cache_page), so according to the RFC responses with 304 code must also include them.
comment:3 by , 8 years ago
Status: | new → assigned |
---|
comment:4 by , 8 years ago
Description: | modified (diff) |
---|
comment:5 by , 8 years ago
Description: | modified (diff) |
---|---|
Has patch: | set |
Triage Stage: | Unreviewed → Accepted |
Type: | New feature → Bug |
comment:6 by , 8 years ago
Triage Stage: | Accepted → Ready for checkin |
---|
I didn't spot a reason for the behavior in the original ticket (#580). Can you motivate this change with an example? You say "most browsers can cache responses with 304 HTTP code" -- any idea why all browsers don't?