[11376] in www-talk@info.cern.ch
Re: Static? Dynamic?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (John Martin)
Wed Jun 30 11:37:43 1999
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 1999 11:16:58 -0400 (EDT)
Old-X-Envelope-From: www-talk-request@www10.w3.org Wed Jun 30 11:16:57 1999
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, roconnor@uwaterloo.ca
From: John Martin <jmartin@netapp.com>
Cc: www-talk@w3.org
In-Reply-To: <37799096.8F56959E@w3.org>
Old-X-Envelope-To: www-talk
Resent-From: www-talk@w3.org
Just to be clear on what we are discussing.
At 10:35 PM 29/06/99 -0500, Dan Connolly wrote:
>As a community, I feel we have the following choice:
> -- provide TTL metadata in those cases where
> we don't want clients (incl. proxy caches)
> to assume a default TTL around a day or a week
> or whatever, so that folks can implement caching per
> the specs and get reasonable application behaviour
For client (user / browser) caches this may indeed be true but all the
proxy caches I know of err on the side of caution. In other words, the
non-existance of a 'Expires' or 'Last Modified' header ensures that an
object will never be cached.
> -- live with the cache-busting techniques that providers
> are forced into due to the current lack of discipline.
This would be regrettable. Sadly, I dont know of many web server
implementations which give information providers the choice to use / set
Cache-Control or Expires settings.
Is W3C coordinating any work on cacheability or freshness issues like this?
Rgds,
John
---------------------------------------------------------------
Network Appliance Main Office: +31 23 567 9600
Kruisweg 799 Fax: +31 23 567 9699
NL-2132 NG Hoofddorp Voicemail/Mobile: +31 654 308 275
---------------------------------------------------------------
