- From: Koen Holtman <koen@win.tue.nl>
- Date: Thu, 20 Jul 1995 16:32:52 +0200 (MET DST)
- To: http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com, www-talk@w3.org
- Cc: koen@win.tue.nl (Koen Holtman), sjk@amazon.com
This is to announce the availability of a report on problems with the HTTP Expires header. This report is available in hypertext form at http://www.amazon.com/expires-report.html, and in plain text form at http://www.amazon.com/expires-report.txt. For discussions about the report, we suggest using the www-talk mailing list. Excerpts from the text version of the report are included below. Koen. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ PROBLEMS WITH THE EXPIRES HEADER Dynamic documents vs. history functions Koen Holtman, koen@win.tue.nl Shel Kaphan, sjk@amazon.com 19 July 1995 SUMMARY Developments in the implementation of browser history functions prevent the HTTP Expires header from becoming the standard, generally usable mechanism for controlling the behavior of caches. To allow all types of dynamic services, which by their nature need to restrict caching, to be implemented in a simple, reliable, and efficient way, the HTTP specification must be extended. We will propose several alternative solutions. Some of the proposed HTTP extensions would not only fix problems of cache control, but their acceptance would also add a means of controlling the contents of browser history lists. Better control over history list contents is needed for some types of dynamic services. AUDIENCE This report discusses problems concerning cache control mechanisms that are relevant to browser authors, the authors of dynamic web services, and everyone contributing to the future development of HTTP. We will present several alternative proposals for extensions to the HTTP specification that solve the discussed cache control problems. We hope that this report will generate a discussion leading to a consensus about which alternative is best. [...] TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction What The HTTP Specification Says What The HTTP Specification Does Not Say Why Does This Matter? An Example What Browsers Do Disadvantages Unrelated to Network Load Uncoupling Cache and History What Is Needed List of Proposals proposal 1: do nothing proposal 2: discourage honoring expires in history functions proposal 3A: add a header to control history: History-Control proposal 3B: add a header to control history: History-Expires proposal 4A: add a second way of disabling caching: pragma no-cache proposal 4B: add a second way of disabling caching: last-modified proposal 5: conditional posts Summary of Proposal Advantages and Disadvantages [...] SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES [...] |---------------------------------|----|----|----|----|----|----|----| |Proposal number | 1 | 2 | 3A | 3B | 4A | 4B | 5 | |---------------------------------|----|----|----|----|----|----|----| |Solves Expires/caching problem | -- | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + | |Browsers now conform | ++ | -- | 0 | 0 | 0 | + | 0 | |Quick move to conformance | + | - | + | - | + | + | -- | |---------------------------------|----|----|----|----|----|----|----| |Allows history function control | 0 | 0 | ++ | + | 0 | 0 | 0 | |---------------------------------|----|----|----|----|----|----|----| | Work needed on: (more is worse) | | | | | | | | | - HTTP specification | 0 | - | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | | - New browser code | 0 | - | -- | -- | - | -- | -- | | - New proxy code | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | - | 0 | -- | | - New server code | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | -- | |---------------------------------|----|----|----|----|----|----|----| |Overall conclusion | -- | + | ++ | + | 0 | 0 | - | |---------------------------------|----|----|----|----|----|----|----| Meaning of ratings: -- very bad / - bad / 0 neutral / + good / ++ very good
Received on Thursday, 20 July 1995 10:33:15 UTC