Changed RFC links from drafts to proposed standarts #7034
Conversation
First 'HTTP Cache' documentation page had been created in May 2013 when RFC 7232 and 7234 were still drafts. I think it makes sense now to change links from drafts to proposed standards and remove the reference to old good RFC 2616 which is already obsolete.
| @@ -362,10 +361,9 @@ Learn more | |||
| .. _`Things Caches Do`: http://2ndscale.com/writings/things-caches-do | |||
| .. _`Cache Tutorial`: http://www.mnot.net/cache_docs/ | |||
| .. _`Varnish`: https://www.varnish-cache.org/ | |||
| .. _`Squid in reverse proxy mode`: http://wiki.squid-cache.org/SquidFaq/ReverseProxy | |||
| .. _`RFC 2616`: http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2616 | |||
| .. _`Squid in reverse proxy mode`: http://wiki.squid-cache.org/SquidFaq/ReverseProxy7 | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thank you, very much, @snoek09
Fixed
|
@javiereguiluz, do you have an idea why checks failed after my second commit? |
| into HTTP Caching, check out the original `RFC 2616`_ document, or these two | ||
| other pieces: `P4 - Conditional Requests`_ and `P6 - | ||
| Caching: Browser and intermediary caches`_. | ||
| into HTTP Caching, check out the original documents `RFC 7234 - Caching`_ and |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Perhaps leave original out in this sentence as I think that referred to RFC 2616.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It makes sense. Fixed as well.
|
@a-ast I don't know why it's failing. Everything looks OK to me and the rendered page is working as expected:
👍 Thanks for this improvement. |
|
The error is not related to this PR. Seems like a regression on platform.sh's side. status: reviewed |
| @@ -192,9 +192,8 @@ These four headers are used to help cache your responses via *two* different mod | |||
|
|
|||
| All of the HTTP headers you'll read about are *not* invented by Symfony! They're | |||
| part of an HTTP specification that's used by sites all over the web. To dig deeper | |||
| into HTTP Caching, check out the original `RFC 2616`_ document, or these two | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Don't we wanna keep the reference to RFC 2616?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@xabbuh, why do you think it makes sense?
Mark Nottingham recommends to forget about 2616 and use newer specs:
'These documents are now RFCs that collectively replace RFC2616, and should be referenced and used in its place'.
|
Thank you @a-ast. |
This PR was squashed before being merged into the 2.7 branch (closes #7034). Discussion ---------- Changed RFC links from drafts to proposed standarts First 'HTTP Cache' documentation page had been created in May 2013 when RFC 7232 and 7234 were still drafts. I think it makes sense now to change links from drafts to proposed standards and remove the reference to old good RFC 2616 which is already obsolete. Commits ------- 098d29c Changed RFC links from drafts to proposed standarts
First 'HTTP Cache' documentation page had been created in May 2013 when RFC 7232 and 7234 were still drafts.
I think it makes sense now to change links from drafts to proposed standards and remove the reference to old good RFC 2616 which is already obsolete.