- From: Koen Holtman <koen@win.tue.nl>
- Date: Sun, 7 Jan 1996 23:24:06 +0100 (MET)
- To: gaines@cpsc.ucalgary.ca (Brian Gaines)
- Cc: http-caching@pa.dec.com
Brian Gaines: > >[Roy T. Fielding:] >>BTW, "cachable" in HTTP means that the response may be reused as the response >>for an equivalent future request -- it does not mean just "may be stored". >> > >Roy, you cannot simply assert this, I think he can. I believe you are interpreting the word `request' in the wrong way. History list browsing commands do not generate requests in the HTTP sense. [...] >Browsers generally use the same cache for the history list as for reuse, >AND seem to use the same HTTP control mechanisms for both (which is not to say >that they SHOULD do so). They definately should NOT use the same control mechanisms. Any good browser implementation should distinguish between two different kinds of storage: the HTTP cache and the history buffer. I know lynx does not, and this is why lynx is an evil browser (though, sadly, it is a necessary evil browser). [...] >It seems clear from the discussion on the caching list that the history-cache >needs its own control mechanisms (as in >http://www.amazon.com/expires-report.html) In http://www.amazon.com/expires-report.html, we were very careful to call the history buffer a _buffer_, not a _cache_. Please do not destroy the terminology we worked so hard to introduce by talking about history caches. >Dr Brian R Gaines Knowledge Science Institute Koen.
Received on Sunday, 7 January 1996 22:38:17 UTC