W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg-old@w3.org > September to December 1996

Re: 13.1.2 Warnings

From: Daniel DuBois <dan@spyglass.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 1996 13:38:32 -0700
Message-Id: <>
To: Ari Luotonen <luotonen@netscape.com>, ben@algroup.co.uk
Cc: masinter@parc.xerox.com, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/1795
>Agree with Ben.  I think it's undesirable if I get a Warning header
>when there it's not suppose to be there.

I might agree with you that it's undesirable.  But if I was Jeff Mogul I'd
retort lengthily how this insures that users always get the right document.
Then if I was Roy Fielding I'd jump on Jeff for destroying the entire New
Zealand network and making his aunt pay huge network charges.

>Say I hav document X, last-modified at Y.  The document is cached in
>case it was guaranteed to be up-to-date.

This analysis is completely correct.  Caches will misbehave on the side of
document accuracy, to a fault.

But given that I've never seen a browser that handles caching/history
buffers the way I'd like (which changes on the situation), I'm not going to
lose sleep over a 1.0 cache that erroneously/needlessly re-requests
documents.  But that's just me.

Larry, it would seem a slight rewording of the warning Note: would be
appropriate given the wording of the definition of semantic transparancy.

Daniel DuBois
I travel, I code, I'm a Traveling Coderman         
Received on Thursday, 17 October 1996 13:48:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:16:21 UTC