I don't understand this, the line in the RFC is clear:<p>> Responses to this method are not cacheable, unless the response includes appropriate Cache-Control or Expires header fields.<p>That is, if you don't include a Cache-Control header, the response is not cacheable. Why is this even controversial? It's a bug.
No need to argue over RFC semantics on this one, as everyone agrees POST should not be cached, many web services are designed around that assumption, and clearly Apple needs to fix this. Most web traffic is GET responses, so the added advantage of caching POST would be very marginal, not worth breaking the web over.
browser vendors should be pressured to up their game with regards to web caching. The cacheability of HTTP is the majority of its value as a network protocol and browsers - the defacto HTTP client - just aren't pulling their weight in this regard.<p>Support for new cache-control directives like stale-if-error, and some kind of API for negotiating/allocating cache storage for web apps would be a good place to start, imo.