- From: Marcos Caceres <marcosscaceres@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 16:27:06 +1000
- To: "Mark Nottingham" <mnot@yahoo-inc.com>
- Cc: "WAF WG (public)" <public-appformats@w3.org>
Hi Mark, On 8/30/07, Mark Nottingham <mnot@yahoo-inc.com> wrote: > You shouldn't need to extend HTTP at all for this use case; use the > URI, look at the ETag, Last-Modified, If-None-Match and If-Modified- > Since headers, along with the 304 response. Also, please recommend > that responses be cacheable for some reasonable amount of time (e.g., > Cache-Control: max-age=3600). Good point. However, I need to investigate the implications (if any) of dynamically generated widgets and widgets sent over HTTPS. Do you see any potential issues? I'll try to write up a model based around Etags and related HTTP1.1 caching controls next week and see if there is any need for a separate spec for auto-updates at all. Regardless, given your knowledge of caching, any further input are appreciated. > Also, is the indirection of a manifest really necessary? Why not just > have them periodically poll the archive of the widget itself? Sorry, I don't understand what you mean by "the indirection of a manifest". Can you please explain what you mean by the above a bit more. Also, one cannot assume that a widget was always acquired directly from a web server: it might be the case that an end-user sends a widget to another end-user, say, over Bluetooth. Those widgets should still be able to connect back to their point origin and check if an update is needed. Kind reagards, Marcos -- Marcos Caceres http://datadriven.com.au
Received on Friday, 31 August 2007 06:27:13 UTC