- From: Hallvord Reiar Michaelsen Steen <hallvord@hallvord.com>
- Date: Fri, 08 Jul 2005 20:33:27 +0200
On 4 Jul 2005 at 17:18, I wrote: > Thanks for sharing your implementation experience regarding status > 304. Suggestion withdrawn This is just summarising some discussions at Opera for documentation and consideration :-) Some people feel we should consider the UA a sort of caching proxy server between the web application and the web for XMLHttpRequest purposes. This would mean using the instructions of the HTTP protocol specification for the interaction between the script and its environment. This may imply that a client with a cached document should return a status 200 when the requested document matches one in the cache (whether or not the UA has checked with the server if the resource is current). That's an interesting point of view. I'm quite convinced by Jim's reference to systems he has implemented, but if we use the HTTP spec for communicating between the JS app and the UA perhaps we can use headers to have it both ways depending on the cache-control and/or pragma instructions? I have to read the HTTP spec's cache part much more closely before I can give any concrete suggestions though.. -- Hallvord Reiar Michaelsen Steen http://www.hallvord.com/
Received on Friday, 8 July 2005 11:33:27 UTC