Re: Caching paragraph, #issue-html-nsdoc

It might materially implicate that fetching of the ns document, but it 
might also mean that in the case of no local caching policy that you do 
not retrieve the ns doc of certain documents, ala what current 
implementations do with XHTML. Not retrieving a document at all can be 
construed  as a caching policy, but usually a cache means there is a local 
copy - and that's something a bit different from not retrieving it at all.

So I'm fine with the text as is, although I would add the sentence to make 
it  more explicit:  "If no caching configuration is present, the namespace 
document of any source document should always be retrieved and checked for 
the presence of one or more GRDDL transformations."

Lastly, if we do get consensus on my added sentence,  we need to update 
current GRDDL implementations to have an  option that allows them to 
retrieve the XHTML ns document if the user so desires.

My general philosophy is to give the user more options :)

Again, this means that current
On Tue, 23 Jan 2007, Dan Connolly wrote:

>
> 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.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>
>
>

-- 
 				--harry

 	Harry Halpin
 	Informatics, University of Edinburgh
         http://www.ibiblio.org/hhalpin

Received on Tuesday, 23 January 2007 22:35:44 UTC