- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2009 18:11:24 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=7689 Nikunj Mehta <nikunj.mehta@oracle.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|RESOLVED |REOPENED Resolution|NEEDSINFO | --- Comment #8 from Nikunj Mehta <nikunj.mehta@oracle.com> 2009-10-19 18:11:23 --- (In reply to comment #7) > > > > My proposal is to either be specific in a normative manner about the kinds of > > > > cache semantics that must be ignored or may be permitted. The specific > > > > semantics that are actually applied are then bounded in this range. > > > > > > Do you have any suggestions for what should _not_ be permitted? I don't really > > > understand what this would look like. > > > > Cache defeating semantics are identified here - > > http://www.basswood.com/standards/WD-countmethod.html. Identifying the > > techniques that are permitted should be either good enough or leaving out the > > whole discussion on cache-defeating semantics should be fine. The current > > situation doesn't really help anyone. > > That doesn't really answer my question. > > There's no point listing which features are permitted if all of them are > permitted. Which should _not_ be permitted? > My proposal is not to identify what is not permitted, but simply to move the statement on cache-defeating semantics to a note. -- Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Monday, 19 October 2009 18:11:28 UTC