- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 16:39:59 +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 #6 from Nikunj Mehta <nikunj.mehta@oracle.com> 2009-09-30 16:39:58 --- (In reply to comment #5) > > From step 7.2 of Section 6.9.4, a non-normative note says > > [[ > > HTTP caching rules, such as Cache-Control: no-store, are ignored for the > > purposes of the application cache update process. > > ]] > > > > This contradiction suggests to me that all cache-related semantics need to be > > specified to the same level of rigor. > > This isn't a contradiction; it's a description of what the algorithm already > does. That is, the algorithm caches data from the server regardless of the > Cache-Control headers _from_ the server. > The contradiction is that a description of what the algorithm does is in non-normative text. > The bit you quoted at the very top of this bug is about user agents sending > cache-related headers _to_ the server, which is completely unrelated. > My point is that the spec is inconsistent in its approach towards cache semantics. > > > 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. -- 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 Wednesday, 30 September 2009 16:40:00 UTC