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 24275 - Application cache vs HTTP Expires
Summary: Application cache vs HTTP Expires
Status: RESOLVED WONTFIX
Alias: None
Product: HTML WG
Classification: Unclassified
Component: HTML5 spec (show other bugs)
Version: unspecified
Hardware: PC Windows NT
: P2 editorial
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: This bug has no owner yet - up for the taking
QA Contact: HTML WG Bugzilla archive list
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2014-01-13 06:12 UTC by vic99999
Modified: 2015-06-17 05:41 UTC (History)
3 users (show)

See Also:


Attachments

Description vic99999 2014-01-13 06:12:27 UTC
Hello

It seems, the "application-cache" spec does not clearly tell about the difference between HTTP caching and "application-cache":

What if i have html page with http max-age header set to 1 year or with expires header?
(i searched with google, on stackoverflow, i cannot find any clear answer, most of pages about "appcache" just says, that it was design for offline and it is a good thing...)

http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/browsers.html#introduction-4

Introduction tells nothing about HTTP Expires headers of "clock.html",
but if Expires was used, the user will not see much difference between appcache and expires before expiration date and while page is not updated on the server, seems.

So, i think, some info on this may help.

Thank you!
Comment 1 Michael[tm] Smith 2015-06-17 05:41:30 UTC
I think this is mostly "overcome by events" in that appcache is deprecated in practice (with Service Worker as the replacement) so what we probably need to do instead is add more disclaimers to the spec to indicate that author-developers should not use appcache (or maybe just go all the way and make the spec say that appcache is obsolete).