Re: Caching paragraph, #issue-html-nsdoc

I like this paragraph. However, I do think we need to as a WG decide what 
the normal case is. In particular, I think while it's *okay* for 
implementers to decide not to fetch namespace documents and instead cache 
them, this doesn't address the XHTML ns doc case, where current 
implementations do not retrieve a ns doc at all.

Upon consideration, it seems like current implementations should at least 
provide a way for the client to check to see if there is any 
transformations at the XHTML ns doc.



On Tue, 23 Jan 2007, Danny Ayers wrote:

> re. my action from the last telecon in respect of
> http://www.w3.org/2004/01/rdxh/spec#issue-html-nsdoc
>
> I've generalised, hopefully not too far. Have at it -
>
> [[
> Transformation Caching
> It can be useful for GRDDL aware agents to maintain a local cache of
> material relating to GRDDL transformations to avoid unnecessary HTTP
> requests. A typical case would be for namespace documents which rarely
> change (and/or may not have an associated GRDDL transformation). This
> caching may extend far beyond document expiry times provided by the server.
> Where this is the case, care should be taken to ensure that the cached
> information is current, to avoid systematic misinterpretation of published
> data. Ideally implementers of GRDDL aware agents will allow any local
> caching to be disabled.
> ]]
>
> Cheers,
> Danny.
>
>

-- 
 				--harry

 	Harry Halpin
 	Informatics, University of Edinburgh
         http://www.ibiblio.org/hhalpin