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

Re: cache-busting document

From: <W.Sylwestrzak@icm.edu.pl>
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 1997 04:26:00 +0200 (MET DST)
Message-Id: <199706110226.EAA17553@galera.icm.edu.pl>
To: Drazen Kacar <dave@srce.hr>
Cc: W.Sylwestrzak@icm.edu.pl, dave@srce.hr, martin@mrrl.lut.ac.uk, http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com, ircache@nlanr.net
Sorry for being sligtly off topic. flame me, if I'm going too far.

Drazen Kacar wrote:

> There are many clients which can't do charset stuff right. Am I supposed
> to put "Usable only with the latest Lynx beta" on my pages? If not,
> I have to make content readable in some way. Cache busting is a reasonable
> price to pay, if you ask me.

OK, after reading your arguments, I see your point.
Actually I was more thinking about converting character encodings
within one character set, e.g. ISO-8859-2 to CP1250
and claimed that most clients (netscape, msie, lynx) can do it.
E.g. there are over 20 different character encoding schemes in Poland,
with many of them present on the Internet.
Fortunately, due to extensive campaign for it ISO-8859-2 is the most 
common now, but with servers offering possibilities of 8 different
encodings (trying to satisfy every possible client) - you can imagine
caching nightmare we have.

But you are of course right - there should be at least easy possibility
of mapping richer charsets into ASCII (by stripping all accents and extras).
And again - I'm surprised - why so few clients have this, seemingly obvious
functionality :-(

So perhaps the wording of the phrase in question should be changed
a little, so that it is clear that it concerns 'encoding conversion'
and not 'mapping' - if I made the difference here clear.
But then this might seem too specific for you English speaking guys
(because this problem does not concern you).

--wojtek
Received on Tuesday, 10 June 1997 19:27:53 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 24 September 2003 06:32:44 EDT