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

Re: Location Proposals

From: Koen Holtman <koen@win.tue.nl>
Date: Mon, 4 Sep 1995 00:12:13 +0200 (MET DST)
Message-Id: <199509032212.AAA07323@wswiop05.win.tue.nl>
To: Shel Kaphan <sjk@amazon.com>
Cc: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Shel Kaphan:
>  Shel:
>  >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.  


>Should != must.

Oh. I guess we are in violent agreement about caching then.

But I must object to your use of `should'.  This is the http-wg list,
so I expect everyone to be using the language of the draft HTTP spec.
The spec uses `should == must', as far as I can tell.  (Lots of RFC's
may not, but that is another matter.)

Furthermore, if you say that caches surely should do X on the http-wg
list, I can only assume that you want X to be required in the HTTP
spec.  If you are discussing optional behavior that should not be in
the spec, please either do it on www-talk, or use clearer terminology.


Received on Sunday, 3 September 1995 15:19:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:40:15 UTC