- From: Daniel DuBois <dan@spyglass.com>
- Date: Thu, 17 Oct 1996 13:38:32 -0700
- 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
>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 http://www.spyglass.com/~ddubois/
Received on Thursday, 17 October 1996 13:48:57 UTC