- From: David Woolley <david@djwhome.demon.co.uk>
- Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2002 14:33:18 +0100 (BST)
- To: www-html@w3.org
> Besides, the situations where an author needs to tune HTTP cache This is getting a bit off topic, but, anyway... > control tend to involve either server-side scripting or high-demand That's probably when they *need* to, but most people who *want* to, do so to frustrate caching as much as possible, often including <meta ...pragma...no-cache>, which is actually meaningless, from a standards point of view, because it is only defined in the client to server direction, but works with popular browsers! Most authors have no idea that about half of HTTP 1.1 is about efficient use of resources through caching, but simply want to frustrate it. > static content. In both cases the author has bigger problems if (s)he > can't influence the HTTP headers. What happens is that people teach themselves HTML, or worse still the person commissioning the job, learns HTML using cheap web hosting, and therefore never learns any mechanism other than meta. When they get to do things with proper access to the server, either they call on their knowledge from cheap hosting services, or the person who actually controls the server is not the cheap HTML author that actually writes the code, and the actual author has never seen the big picture. Another factor is, in the current culture of instant gratification, people don't want to learn about HTML and HTTP, only about HTML (which also explains off topic questions, where people confuse DOM with HTML). The reasons that cheap web hosting services don't provide proper HTTP access are: 1) an incentive to upgrade to their more expensive services; 2) security, although anyone offering CGI has probably compromised that if they don't know how to maintain the rest of the HTTP server configuration in a non-trivial secure condition.
Received on Saturday, 28 September 2002 10:15:18 UTC