W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > http-caching-historical@w3.org > February 1996

Re: On transparency

From: David W. Morris <dwm@shell.portal.com>
Date: Sun, 25 Feb 1996 18:06:17 -0800 (PST)
To: HTTP Caching Subgroup <http-caching@pa.dec.com>
Message-Id: <Pine.SUN.3.90.960225175704.26725G-100000@jobe.shell.portal.com>

On Sun, 25 Feb 1996, Shel Kaphan wrote:

> Koen Holtman writes:
> It seems pretty clear to me that Koen is on the right track with this.
> (I take back some confused comments earlier today on the subject
> max-stale -- sorry, I should eat some breakfast before answering mail...).

I agree ... I should read my mail before responding to a thread ... my
recent post was intended to be, I think, almost the same as Koen's but
not as well stated.
> Koen: do you think the warnings that users see should just be in
> documents sent by the origin server, or do think that there should be
> any kind of general facility for warning users when the server wants
> to issue such a warning?  If there were a general facility, it might
> be simpler for users to turn off the "never check" option (e.g. if a
> dialog box pops up at the appropriate time).  It is theoretically
> possible for browsers to offer such a facility if (1) they are in
> "never check" mode, and (2) they receive a response from a server that
> indicates cache-control or expiration options that would be overridden
> by the browser's current mode.

My intent was that the browser be required to notify the user of
the problem when the confict is detected AND if the user insists
on the confict, then the UA must include in all subsequent
requests to the 'same' (we can define this) server the new header/option
to notify the server that the client is unable/unwilling to follow
the no-cache rule.  Furthermore, at least the next request must be
sent to allow the server a chance to accept/reject the refusal to
abide by the no-cache control. I suspect that that any application
which requires this no-cache feature will involve multiple iterations
between the client and the server and hence the server will have adequate
awareness of the potential problem.

Dave Morris
Received on Monday, 26 February 1996 03:31:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 19:55:57 UTC