- From: cynthia <notifications@github.com>
- Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2023 16:15:43 -0700
- To: w3ctag/design-reviews <design-reviews@noreply.github.com>
- Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Received on Monday, 31 July 2023 23:15:48 UTC
We've discussed and looked at this during our vF2F. The API surface/design, use cases this attempts to solve seem valid - and is articulated through a well-written explainer. The part that we *are* concerned about this proposal is more philosophical - the question that remains to be asked is whether exposing cache control going to work this time. If it doesn't this will potentially end up with a widely-used antipattern which eventually makes everyone's life difficult. This has happened in the past, and given how cache is a complex problem - there is a non-zero chance this will happen in the future. If the risks of (unintentional, e.g. "preventing cache on everything fixes a simple problem I have!" pattern for example.) misuse is higher than the gains of exposing this, then maybe this shouldn't be exposed. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/786#issuecomment-1659332029 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: <w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/786/1659332029@github.com>
Received on Monday, 31 July 2023 23:15:48 UTC