- From: Jamie Lokier <jamie@shareable.org>
- Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2009 04:07:39 +0100
- To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Cc: "Yngve N. Pettersen" <yngve@opera.com>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Mark Nottingham wrote: > Hi Yngve, > > I think the your question should be posed as: what compromises the > cache subsystem? > > In a browser, the HTML parser component would dispatch requests to a > cache, which then either satisfies the requests or forwards them. If > an HTML page has three references to <http://example.com/foo.gif>, for > example, there are two ways of approaching this problem; > > 1) asking the cache for foo.gif once (perhaps by piggybacking the > callbacks for subsequent images into the first instance), or I think it might be worth describing under what circumstances a browser is allowed (and maybe encouraged) to do this with no-store responses, as well as no-cache and uncachable responses generally. In other words, when can a browser reasonably use the same response in multiple ways, and when must it issue new requests? We can't dictate browser behaviour, of course, but we might be able to devise a useful guideline. There is little point in a web page with multiple references a no-store/no-cache image from triggering multiple requests to that image, and doing so makes no-store/no-cache less unusable if there are hundreds of such references and a browser works that way. I think I recall some version of IE where a web page containing a "rollover" changing image would issue a new request every time the image changed, if it was served with no-cache, making no-cache less useful. -- Jamie
Received on Monday, 8 June 2009 03:08:16 UTC