Re: Location Proposals

Shel Kaphan:
>Koen:
>  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.


>--Shel

Koen.