13696 2011-08-06 10:47:07 +0000 appcache & cache-control 2011-08-06 17:13:57 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified HTML WG LC1 HTML5 spec unspecified Other All RESOLVED WONTFIX http://www.w3.org/mid/alpine.DEB.1.10.1108031603080.2827@wnl.j3.bet P3 normal --- 1 mike+html-wg-mailbot ian ian julian.reschke mike public-html-admin public-html-wg-issue-tracking ylafon public-html-bugzilla oldest_to_newest 54320 0 mike+html-wg-mailbot 2011-08-06 10:47:07 +0000 public-html-comments posting from: Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org> http://www.w3.org/mid/alpine.DEB.1.10.1108031603080.2827@wnl.j3.bet 54323 1 mike 2011-08-06 10:49:00 +0000 [[ In http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-html5-20110525/offline.html#downloading-or-updating-an-application-cache 7.3, there is this note: << HTTP caching rules, such as Cache-Control: no-store, are ignored for the purposes of the application cache download process. >> Either it needs to be called out as a willful violation of RFC2616, or step 6 should be amended to add the presence of a Cache-Control: no-store to the list of failures like this: << Otherwise, if fetching the manifest fails in some other way (e.g. the server returns another 4xx or 5xx response or equivalent, or the server indicates that the representation cannot be stored, or there is a DNS error, or the connection times out, or the user cancels the download, or the parser for manifests fails when checking the magic signature) >> The second option would also help apps developers catching wrong configuration server-side and allow better caching of those resources (like for users behind regional caches). ]] 54342 2 ian 2011-08-06 17:04:04 +0000 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: Reviewer was reviewing an obsolete draft; this has since changed. 54344 3 julian.reschke 2011-08-06 17:13:57 +0000 If it has changed, the resolution should be "fixed" (and it would be good to link to the change).