W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > February 2001

RE: client side includes (fwd)

From: Russell O'Connor <roconnor@math.berkeley.edu>
Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2001 15:33:38 -0800 (PST)
To: W3C HTML <www-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.4.32.0102031503250.2653-100000@pub-708c-18>
On Sat, 3 Feb 2001, Murray Macdonald wrote:

> Russell,
> Thanks for a great substantiated reply.  I guess that this would be
> true if the included content does not change or have any conditional
> requirements.  How would an HTML client-side syntax allow for a single
> included item not to be cached?  I guess the included file would
> require a pragma no cache tag.

The problem of stale cached is not unique to this situation.  Entities
retirieved over HTTP come with an expires header that gives a suggested
amount of time keep it in a cache. ... Anyway I'm far from an expert in
this area.

> Compatibility with existing UAs is still the best reason for SSIs.

This is true.  Adding anything new to the internet that isn't backwards
compatable requires users installing new UAs.  This holds for Flash, VRML,
greek characters in HTML, etc., and will likely hold for client-side
includes.  People who make entites that use client-side includes would
have to be aware of this.

Russell O'Connor
``Paradoxically, a refusal to `put a monetary value on life' means that
life is often undervalued.'' -- Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach
Received on Saturday, 3 February 2001 18:33:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:05:56 UTC