In the comment 12 about chromium bug on implementing `Cache-Control: immutable` https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=611416#c12 > Chrome no longer forces validation on reload, so immutable shouldn't be necessary. and comment 13 says > To add to #12, we might consider implementing Immutable if the following conditions are met: > 1. there are substantial remaining opportunities > 2. and they can only be addressed by adding this new API. Linking to https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=612701 This bug will track following changes. - Add some content browser tests for monitoring cache-control flags on each reload operations - Make the new reload (RELOAD_MAIN_RESOURCE) work nicely with DevTools. Currently, memory cache change the policy in a wrong way when DevTools is open. - Add new field study for desktop with also https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=600636 Change behavior of Reload to (validate main resource + regular load) instead of the current forced reload which triggers conditional requests on all the things
Is this bug proposing to change something or is it only to track a difference in reload behavior between browsers?
NI Karl for the question comment 1.
It's a kind of heads-up. I'm not sure yet if we will get any differences of behaviors or incompatibilities for this. Google seems to tie this to their own future implementation of `Cache-Control: Immutable`. They don't seem to be decided yet. This is not a proposal (yet) to change anything. Thanks for asking Ben, sorry to not have been clearer in the initial description.
I guess my impression was chrome wanted to tie the "no revalidation" behavior to a max-age threshold. If the max-age is above that value then the resource does not get revalidation on reload. For what its worth I think we should try to avoid adding these kind of magic thresholds. I think exposing "cache-control:immutable" as an explicit signal is much better.
(In reply to Ben Kelly [:bkelly] from comment #4) > I think exposing "cache-control:immutable" as an explicit signal is much better. I have been waiting for months for a bug reported in chromium's bug list by anyone else which may says "this Chrome's new reload behavior is not backward compatible!" since I reported https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=654378#c2, but it turned out nobody noticed this change except me. So maybe this aggressive change is backward compatible and we don't need "cache-control:immutable"?