Re: Server Push -> Cache Push?

I'd prefer if we called server originated or something like that if that is
the source of confusion.
On Jan 29, 2014 4:05 PM, "Roberto Peon" <grmocg@gmail.com> wrote:

> No, I think that would add to confusion, especially if we ever change the
> spec to allow push of no-cache resources, etc.
> On Jan 29, 2014 4:00 PM, "Mark Nottingham" <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:
>
>> I've noticed some confusion when I talk to people about server push,
>> because it's not clear whether the server is being pushed to or from, and
>> it doesn't make clear what's really happening.
>>
>> What do people think about calling it "cache push" instead? To me, it
>> gets to the heart of what's happening more clearly.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>>
>> --
>> Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>