W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg-old@w3.org > September to December 1995

Re: Location Proposals

From: Shel Kaphan <sjk@amazon.com>
Date: Sat, 2 Sep 1995 16:55:23 -0700
Message-Id: <199509022355.QAA06603@bert.amazon.com>
To: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com

Koen:

  [...]
  > > You are still thinking in terms of a mechanism that makes caches
  > > replace previously cached, but unexpired, copies.
  >
  >They sure should do so!  If a cache gets a newer copy of a document,
  >it should lose the older one, even if its not expired.  Is this
  >controversial?

  Yes it is controversial.  The spec currently says that 

    not expired = OK to show ,

  and I don't want to change this simple rule.  Losing older, but
  un-expired, responses is nice behavior, but it should be *optional*
  behavior.  Else, we get either huge robustness problems or huge
  efficiency problems.

Should != must.

And don't misunderstand: I didn't mean caches must check for newer
versions on every request they get, I just meant that *if* they fetch
a new copy of something, and they know it, they should thereafter use
the new copy instead of older copies they previously had, even if the
older copy had not expired.

An innocent, non-controversial statement if ever I have uttered one.

--Shel
Received on Saturday, 2 September 1995 16:59:58 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 24 September 2003 06:31:31 EDT