W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-validator@w3.org > November 2007

Re: Something about the caching feature in 0.9.x

From: Karim A. <directeur@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 15:41:40 +0100
Message-ID: <9ddf33ea0711220641s20eefb9dr85550c4cb91d80ad@mail.gmail.com>
To: "olivier Thereaux" <ot@w3.org>
Cc: bugs@timj.co.uk, "W3C Validator Community" <www-validator@w3.org>

On 11/22/07, olivier Thereaux <ot@w3.org> wrote:
> On 22 nov. 07, at 06:53, Karim A. wrote:
> > I actually don't agree with bug 4998.
> > IMHO it's not a bug at all.
> >
> > Why? Because it's up to the server to decide for
> > what it will be used.
> Note that you have to take into account intermediate caching proxies.
> I believe that was the original reason for this.

You are very right! Thank you!
I was about giving my stupid opinion, and just in time I didn't.
Anyway, if someone's interested, you can look at
here [1]. I won't pollute this ML with stupid opinions :)

> For this reason, I think the current setup is right. Which doesn't
> mean we can't upgrade it with an internal cache for the validator and
> an if-modified-since header, at some point. Would you like to look
> into it?

Yes, sure we could always have an internal cache based
on if-modified-since (and/or etags).
I actually didn't done much things with perl that's years now.
I'd be happy to share my own python implementation of this
internal cache and if someone could implement the idea in perl,
I'd be very happy! :)

[1] http://blog.xhtml-css.com/2007/11/on-caching-excitement-and-stupidity.html

Be Valid or die learning
Received on Thursday, 22 November 2007 14:42:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 14:17:54 UTC