W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-talk@w3.org > May to June 1995

Re: caching dilemma

From: Shel Kaphan <sjk@amazon.com>
Date: Fri, 26 May 1995 10:28:20 -0700
Message-Id: <199505261728.KAA10368@bert.amazon.com>
To: nazgul@utopia.com
Cc: Multiple recipients of list <www-talk@www10.w3.org>
Kee Hinckley writes:
 > At 10:20 PM 5/25/95, Shel Kaphan wrote:
 > >To make the web work more smoothly, it would be nice if browsers would
 > >handle this situation more gracefully, by, for instance, not displaying
 > >errors like "Data Missing", but just automatically reloading the page.
 > 
 > Automatic reloading of a page in my history stack seems rather
 > user-unfriendly. I expect history loading to be fast and not go off over
 > the net. I guess I could see it as a user-specified option, but...
 > 
I definitely see your point -- as I see it we're talking about a
"lesser of evils" situation.  When you "back up" to an expired page,
there are only three things I can think of that could happen:
1. you see the expired document.
2. you see an error message and (if you interpret the message correctly)
	you can reload the page manually
3. the browser reloads the page behind your back.

Well, as Lori Anderson would put it, "?Que es mas macho?"
I guess I'd pick door number 1 -- but only for the case where you view
the page with browser navigation commands, not explicit links.

 > >document.  It is REALLY BAD for browsers to display cached copies of
 > >expired documents when they are meant to be freshly displayed in
 > >response to a direct user command, because a URL may be a request to a
 > 
 > There I agree.
 > 
Received on Friday, 26 May 1995 13:32:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Monday, 20 January 2020 16:08:17 UTC