- From: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
- Date: Thu, 04 Mar 2010 09:42:40 -0500
- To: RDFa WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
On 03/04/10 07:37, Ivan Herman wrote: > On 2010-3-4 13:05 , Shane McCarron wrote: >> I am pretty sure Manu just means that it is permissible to cache the >> contents of the vocabulary definition, and that it is also permissible >> to hard code the contents. So if we (or Google or whomever) define a >> vocabulary at a well known URI and commit to never changing that vocab >> at that URI, it is permissible to hard code it in an implementation. I >> personally have no problem with that, nor do I have a problem with >> caching (although we should probably ensure that the HTTP cache-control >> header is used). Yes, this is exactly what I was attempting to express. I hadn't considered the HTTP Cache-Control header - didn't know if we should say anything about caching, or leave that up to the implementers? We could easily get a bit too heavy handed in the caching language... maybe we should mention that implementers that have access to a caching mechanism MAY utilize HTTP Cache-Control and ETags as it suits the situation. Maybe even go as far as making it a SHOULD? > Well, let us see what Manu thinks he wanted to say:-) Shane summarized what I was trying to say quite well... I should probably just have Shane speak for me from now on. :) -- manu -- Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny) President/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc. blog: PaySwarming Goes Open Source http://blog.digitalbazaar.com/2010/02/01/bitmunk-payswarming/
Received on Thursday, 4 March 2010 14:43:08 UTC