Re: Caching paragraph, #issue-html-nsdoc

On Jan 23, 2007, at 3:51 PM, Harry Halpin wrote:
> I like this paragraph. However, I do think we need to as a WG decide 
> what the normal case is. In particular, I think while it's *okay* for 
> implementers to decide not to fetch namespace documents and instead 
> cache them, this doesn't address the XHTML ns doc case, where current 
> implementations do not retrieve a ns doc at all.
>
> Upon consideration, it seems like current implementations should at 
> least provide a way for the client to check to see if there is any 
> transformations at the XHTML ns doc.

Hmm. I don't understand how what you're asking for is different from 
what Danny wrote.

"implementers of GRDDL aware agents will allow any local caching to be 
disabled" implies that "current implementations should at least provide 
a way for the client to check to see if there is any transformations at 
the XHTML ns doc", no?

If not, would you please suggest text that would address your concern?


> On Tue, 23 Jan 2007, Danny Ayers wrote:
>
>> re. my action from the last telecon in respect of
>> http://www.w3.org/2004/01/rdxh/spec#issue-html-nsdoc
>>
>> I've generalised, hopefully not too far. Have at it -
>>
>> [[
>> Transformation Caching
>> It can be useful for GRDDL aware agents to maintain a local cache of
>> material relating to GRDDL transformations to avoid unnecessary HTTP
>> requests. A typical case would be for namespace documents which rarely
>> change (and/or may not have an associated GRDDL transformation). This
>> caching may extend far beyond document expiry times provided by the 
>> server.
>> Where this is the case, care should be taken to ensure that the cached
>> information is current, to avoid systematic misinterpretation of 
>> published
>> data. Ideally implementers of GRDDL aware agents will allow any local
>> caching to be disabled.
>> ]]
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Danny.
>>
>>
>>


-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/

Received on Tuesday, 23 January 2007 21:26:55 UTC