W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg-old@w3.org > May to August 1997

Re: cache-busting document

From: Wojtek Sylwestrzak <W.Sylwestrzak@icm.edu.pl>
Date: Sun, 8 Jun 1997 15:05:30 +0200 (MET DST)
Message-Id: <199706081305.PAA29287@galera.icm.edu.pl>
To: "David W. Morris" <dwm@xpasc.com>
Cc: W.Sylwestrzak@icm.edu.pl, dave@srce.hr, martin@mrrl.lut.ac.uk, http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com, ircache@nlanr.net
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/3444
David W. Morris:
> Sorry, it is the client's resonsiblity to declare what is is capabile of.
> It is the responsiblity of the server to deliver to the client content
> that the client is able to understand, only then is it the client's
> responsiblity to process it correctly. 

Well ... , yes.
We are talking about different things here.
You write about content negotiation as in HTTP/1.1
while my comment was about the current practice.
I should have been clearer about this.

The intention of the document is I guess more practical
recommendations than copying parts of HTTP/1.1 specs.

Unfortunately most of the servers practicing this today
try  to perform a 'naive' content negotiation, which effectively
uses redirects to other urls. This is of course wrong,
because it unnecessarily expands the url addressing space,
thus making caching less effective.

Most of the contemporary clients are able to convert
character encoding on the fly, so that the rendered document
is presented to the reader with the font sets locally available.

rom the caching point of view it would be a very good practice
for the clients to request/expect a single, standard charset
for a given language (considered being a 'transport' charset).
I believe this problem is underestimated in countries, where
charset requirements are satisfied by ISO-8859-1.


Received on Sunday, 8 June 1997 13:27:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:40:20 UTC