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

RE: client side includes (fwd)

From: Dave J Woolley <david.woolley@bts.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 12:02:41 -0000
Message-ID: <81E4A2BC03CED111845100104B62AFB50102A465@stagecoach.bts.co.uk>
To: W3C HTML <www-html@w3.org>
> From:	Murray Macdonald [SMTP:murray@mha.ca]
> 
> 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 
	[DJW:]  
	Exactly the same way as for frames!

> pragma no cache tag.  Is this practical and allowed within all code
> snippets?  Even if, I guess 
	[DJW:]  
	Tags (elements) have no effect on shared caches (e.g. the
	eplicit or transparent caches used by many ISPs) and 
	Pragms: is an obsolescent HTTP header; a large part of HTTP 1.1
	is the result of a better caching model.++  Caching is desirable,
	so disabling it should not be encouraged.

	rename their include files every time they changed to avoid cached
versions from persisting.  I 

[DJW:]  Although rarely done, this is considered good practice even
for the targets of simple links as it allows the bookmarking of
old content.  (You normally only do it if there is some loss of
content, rather than a simple enhancement.)

++I recently came across a scripting only site that had meta elements
trying to say don't cache, but had real HTTP headers shouting
"cache me!" (Last-Modified, Etag, and Cache-Control: public.)
-- 
--------------------------- DISCLAIMER ---------------------------------
Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender,
except where the sender specifically states them to be the views of BTS.
Received on Wednesday, 7 February 2001 07:03:03 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:15:45 GMT