3 ms·
Browsers tend to cache 200 OK responses. When HN came up (as reported on Twitter) I kept getting the error page until I bust the cache and reloaded. Yup, that's
by yawboakye 13y ago
Browsers tend to cache 200 OK responses. When HN came up (as reported on Twitter) I kept getting the error page until I bust the cache and reloaded. Yup, that's what 200 OK for an error page can cause. A regular reload will still show your _down_ page
- ars 13y agoI had the same issue. Checking all day. I saw that it was back up so I tried it - and it was still down. Finally thought to try reload and it gave the page.
- tedd4u 13y agoWell by the letter of the RFC browsers and middle boxes (all the invisible caching proxies out there at your ISP, etc) are only supposed to cache if the cache/expires headers are set for that, but 200 is a bad choice for most people running a site for the other reasons listed above like crawlers/indexers. 5xx is correct for a problem on the server, usually 500, 503 or 504 (http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec10.html http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec10.html). At the same time there are many erroneous implementations (intentional and unintentional) that, as you imply, just cache any 200 without checking cache headers. This is also a good practical reason to avoid doing this.
- 0x0 13y agoI think that was actually caused by the incredibly high cache-control expire header, which claimed cached versions of the page should be valid for 10 years (!)