W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdfa-wg@w3.org > March 2010

Re: Telecon Agenda - 4th March 2010, 1500 UTC

From: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
Date: Thu, 04 Mar 2010 09:42:40 -0500
Message-ID: <4B8FC6E0.5060200@digitalbazaar.com>
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 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 04:55:06 GMT