W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > February 2010

Re: [Bug 8252] HTTP caching rules are _ignored_? What's wrong with extending Cache-Control to support user-agent caching instead of coming up with an entirely new mechanism?

From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
Date: Sun, 14 Feb 2010 03:51:09 -0800
Message-ID: <63df84f1002140351x3ad1253hc19b5ab78dd715b1@mail.gmail.com>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: public-html@w3.org
On Sun, Feb 14, 2010 at 3:47 AM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:
> Jonas Sicking wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, Feb 14, 2010 at 3:27 AM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Jonas Sicking wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Out of curiosity, for a document like:
>>>>
>>>> <!DOCTYPE html>
>>>> <html>
>>>> <head><title>...</title></head>
>>>> <body>
>>>> <img src="myPic.jpg">
>>>> <img src="myPic.jpg">
>>>> </body>
>>>> </html>
>>>>
>>>> and with a GET request to myPic.jpg returning cache-control:no-cache
>>>>
>>>> Should this result in two requests being made to myPic.jpg? If not, is
>>>
>>> No.
>>>
>>>> that considered ignoring HTTP caching rules?
>>>
>>> It depends on what HTML says about how the <img> tag is processed.
>>
>> How does it depend on what HTML says?
>
>>
>> I.e. under what conditions would HTML requiring your "No" answer above
>> be violating the HTTP caching rules? And under what conditions would
>> requiring your "No" answer not violate the HTTP caching rules?
>>
>> Or am I misunderstanding your answer?
>
> It depends on whether the language requires the two tags to be treated
> one-by-one.

So couldn't we use the same language to describe the desired behavior
in the application cache then?

/ Jonas
Received on Sunday, 14 February 2010 11:52:01 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:17:01 GMT