- From: Aryeh Gregor <Simetrical+w3c@gmail.com>
- Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2010 20:37:11 -0400
2010/9/19 Julian Reschke <julian.reschke at gmx.de>: > So it's a workaround that causes a performance optimization. It wouldn't be > necessary if the linked resource would have the right caching information in > the first place. Sure it would. You can currently only save an HTTP request if a future Expires header (or equivalent) can be sent. A lot of the time, the resource might change at any moment, so you can't send such a header. The client has to check every time, and get a 204, even if the resource changes very rarely. If you could indicate in the HTML source that you know the resource hasn't changed, you could save a lot of round-trips on a page that links to many resources.
Received on Sunday, 19 September 2010 17:37:11 UTC