W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > August 2007

Re: Suggestion for new link pseudo-class :current (or similar

From: David Woolley <forums@david-woolley.me.uk>
Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2007 21:37:36 +0100
Message-ID: <46B0EF10.30205@david-woolley.me.uk>
To: www-style@w3.org

Grey Hodge wrote:
> 
> How would anything people do regarding their site's organizational structure
> affect cacheability in any way? I can't see any manner in which this would be
> an issue. Yes it would break existing cached copies, but so does any update of
> a page currently.
> 

Given that HTTP 1.1 Vary: header support is patchy, at best, if one 
wants a content negotiated page to be cached, and in particularly to be 
cached in shared caches, you must give it a unique name, based just on 
the URL, and you must respond to the negotiated URL with an end to end 
redirect to the negotiated version.

-- 
David Woolley
Emails are not formal business letters, whatever businesses may want.
RFC1855 says there should be an address here, but, in a world of spam,
that is no longer good advice, as archive address hiding may not work.
Received on Wednesday, 1 August 2007 20:37:44 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:51 GMT