- From: Scott Luebking <phoenixl@netcom.com>
- Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 20:00:24 -0800 (PST)
- To: nir@nirdagan.com, phoenixl@netcom.com, w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Hi, Nir Your point is valid if the page is static. However, I'm looking at situations like search engine results, web pages presented in a portal customized for each of thousands of users, web pages listing contents of shopping carts, etc. It doesn't make sense to cahce these. Scott > One problem with dynamically generated pages is that one has > to configure the server to send the appropriate last-modified > response header to allow caching. > > In addition, the server would like documents to be cached only > if it can assure that the cached document that is served to > the user is the appropiate variant. > > The simplest way to solve this problem is to have > prewritten "static" versions on the server, with different URLs, > and the server may use redirects (using a response with 302 > status code) based on content negotiation. (Content negotiation > includes user-agent request header). > > Having each variant with a different URL makes the documents that the users > receive non-negotiated documents that can be cached, and using static files > makes the last-modified header a trivial matter: usually the server will > use the operating system's information about the file in question. > > However even with this solution you get less caching than with serving > one document with one URL. > > So I would recommend to > 1. attempt to reduce the number of variants to a minimum. (using diffeent > style sheets per different media and following WAI guidelines) > 2. If more than one variant is served, have them with different URLs > and make sure the appropriate last-modified header is sent. > > What is this "mimimum" in article 1 above if a function of what > clients can actually do. (support to which style sheet languages, what level, > bugs etc.) > > Clearly, all this matters only if the document is "otherwise static". > In case of serving pages based on user input that can not > be repeated by other users, caching is irrelevant anyway.
Received on Monday, 22 November 1999 23:00:28 UTC