This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.

Bug 8252 - HTTP caching rules are _ignored_? What's wrong with extending Cache-Control to support user-agent caching instead of coming up with an entirely new mechanism?
Summary: HTTP caching rules are _ignored_? What's wrong with extending Cache-Control t...
Status: RESOLVED WONTFIX
Alias: None
Product: HTML WG
Classification: Unclassified
Component: pre-LC1 HTML5 spec (editor: Ian Hickson) (show other bugs)
Version: unspecified
Hardware: Other other
: P3 normal
Target Milestone: LC
Assignee: Ian 'Hixie' Hickson
QA Contact: HTML WG Bugzilla archive list
URL: http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/...
Whiteboard:
Keywords: NE, TrackerIssue
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2009-11-09 21:46 UTC by contributor
Modified: 2010-10-04 14:55 UTC (History)
6 users (show)

See Also:

Attachments

Description contributor 2009-11-09 21:46:11 UTC 
Section: http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#downloading-or-updating-an-application-cache

Comment:
HTTP caching rules are _ignored_? What the hell? What's wrong with extending Cache-Control to support user-agent caching instead of coming up with an entirely new mechanism?

Posted from: 203.63.130.33
Comment 1 Michael[tm] Smith 2009-11-11 10:54:47 UTC 
> Section:
> http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#downloading-or-updating-an-application-cache
> 
> Comment:
> HTTP caching rules are _ignored_? What the hell? What's wrong with extending
> Cache-Control to support user-agent caching instead of coming up with an
> entirely new mechanism?
> 
> Posted from: 203.63.130.33
Comment 2 Ian 'Hixie' Hickson 2010-01-05 11:20:22 UTC 
EDITOR'S RESPONSE: This is an Editor's Response to your comment. If you are satisfied with this response, please change the state of this bug to CLOSED. If you have additional information and would like the editor to reconsider, please reopen this bug. If you would like to escalate the issue to the full HTML Working Group, please add the TrackerRequest keyword to this bug, and suggest title and text for the tracker issue; or you may create a tracker issue yourself, if you are able to do so. For more details, see this document:
   http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy.html

Status: Rejected
Change Description: no spec change
Rationale: No proposal was put forward that would sanely reuse HTTP caching rules. HTTP caching really isn't built for this kind of thing; reusing it would be an abuse of HTTP. (It would also be significantly more complicated to set up.)
Comment 3 Julian Reschke 2010-01-05 11:41:17 UTC 
Not being able to *use* the HTTP caching rules doesn't mean it's OK to ignore them (and that's what the spec appears to say).

To make progress with this, it would be useful to understand what requirements HTML5 has here, and which of these aren't covered by what HTTP already offers.
Comment 4 Ian 'Hixie' Hickson 2010-02-05 20:37:01 UTC 
EDITOR'S RESPONSE: This is an Editor's Response to your comment. If you are satisfied with this response, please change the state of this bug to CLOSED. If you have additional information and would like the editor to reconsider, please reopen this bug. If you would like to escalate the issue to the full HTML Working Group, please add the TrackerRequest keyword to this bug, and suggest title and text for the tracker issue; or you may create a tracker issue yourself, if you are able to do so. For more details, see this document:
   http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy.html

Status: Did Not Understand Request
Change Description: no spec change
Rationale: The requirement was basically making it possible to easily cache a bunch of files and be sure that they would always be updated and expired as a single unit. I don't understand what is being proposed in this bug, however, and so cannot make a change to the spec.
Comment 5 Julian Reschke 2010-02-05 21:26:01 UTC 
Again: "Not being able to *use* the HTTP caching rules doesn't mean it's OK to ignore them (and that's what the spec appears to say)."

Are you disagreeing that it's ignoring the rules?
Comment 6 Ian 'Hixie' Hickson 2010-02-14 10:21:27 UTC 
EDITOR'S RESPONSE: This is an Editor's Response to your comment. If you are satisfied with this response, please change the state of this bug to CLOSED. If you have additional information and would like the editor to reconsider, please reopen this bug. If you would like to escalate the issue to the full HTML Working Group, please add the TrackerRequest keyword to this bug, and suggest title and text for the tracker issue; or you may create a tracker issue yourself, if you are able to do so. For more details, see this document:
   http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy.html

Status: Rejected
Change Description: no spec change
Rationale: No spec change proposed and I'm not interested in taking part in a philosophical debate in a bug report.
Comment 7 Maciej Stachowiak 2010-03-30 03:23:07 UTC 
Julian, do you have a suggested title or text for the tracker issue? Any chance you could raise the issue yourself?
Comment 8 Julian Reschke 2010-03-30 12:38:02 UTC 
(In reply to comment #7)
> Julian, do you have a suggested title or text for the tracker issue? Any chance
> you could raise the issue yourself?

"Do not ignore HTTP caching rules"?
Comment 9 Maciej Stachowiak 2010-09-15 09:41:11 UTC 
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/121