- From: David Woolley <david@djwhome.demon.co.uk>
- Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2005 21:48:40 +0100 (BST)
- To: www-style@w3.org
> How things are cached and managed is unimportant to the existance of The details of caching are actually pretty important and a large part of HTTP/1.1 is about them. It's unlikely that defaults truly reflect the appropriate values. > such a feature to the web author. They need only know that it's turned > on. Actually, if you look at people's attempts to control caching with meta elements (often theoretically unsound) you will quickly realise that designers don't want to know what the caching settings are, they simply want to force them to no caching at all. > > Actually most that I've seen are in fact fairly complex. They often > handle server script (PHP, ASP, CGI), they handle page instructions These are usually conceptually handled by plug-ins, outside of the core server engine. > I'm sure that's exactly what the web authors had in mind with > spacer.gif . The truth I think is that visual designers think in Although its certainly arguable, I think that weakens your argument that if browsers had implemented your five zones internally designers wouldn't have tried to do their own layouts with tables. > pictures and when asked why all there <p> elements are empty except > for a src attribute, they're going to say, "that's how you do images Hopefully, that sort of designer will realise that they should be using HTML 4.01 Transitional. Unfortunately, computing now being a fashion industry, they probably will try and misuse XHTML 2.0 > now." The irony will be bittersweet. I'll be right and won't want to > be.
Received on Tuesday, 5 July 2005 21:12:18 UTC