- From: Koen Holtman <koen@win.tue.nl>
- Date: Mon, 8 Jan 1996 12:04:44 +0100 (MET)
- To: gaines@cpsc.ucalgary.ca (Brian Gaines)
- Cc: http-caching@pa.dec.com
Brian Gaines: > >Koen Holtman: > >>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. >> > >"Destroy" sounds like a word for Ghengis Khan. Sure it sounds like that: it was a terminology flame, and I was just expressing how I felt. > It is clear in all this >that there is no dispute about actual system operation. Yes. I merely objected to your use of the word `history cache' instead of `history buffer', while referring to http://www.amazon.com/expires-report.html, of which I am one of the authors, as a reason for doing so. The central point of your message, which seems to be that the 1.1 draft does not define `cache' in a clear enough way, is better addresed by Roy. For the record, I do think you have some point when you say that browser authors can confuse caches with history buffers while reading the 1.1 draft. But if we start calling history buffers history caches, we will only add to that confusion. >b. Koen.
Received on Monday, 8 January 1996 11:19:36 UTC