[whatwg] Gears caching at identical URIs (was: Gears design goals)
robert at ocallahan.org
Tue Jul 3 03:31:13 PDT 2007
On 7/3/07, Robert Sayre <sayrer at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 7/2/07, Robert O'Callahan <robert at ocallahan.org> wrote:
> > On 7/3/07, Robert Sayre <sayrer at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On 7/2/07, Robert O'Callahan <robert at ocallahan.org> wrote:
> > > > On 7/2/07, Robert Sayre <sayrer at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Basically, I think offline caches should respect the Vary: HTTP
> > > > > header, and maybe more. Applications will need to do this right
> > > > > anyway, if they want to function correctly in the presence of ISP
> > > > > proxies (AOL, TMobile, etc), corporate firewalls, and server-side
> > > > > stuff like Citrix Netscalers.
> > > >
> > > > No they don't. For example, they can just use Cache-Control:private
> > > > bypass those caches. That's what GMail does.
> > >
> > > Yes, I should have mentioned that I don't think an Offline API will be
> > > able to handle Cache-Control:private stuff better than other proxies
> > > unless it reinvents other HTTP caching mechanisms.
> > I don't know what you mean. Offline storage is a private cache and can
> > ignore Cache-Control:private.
> Seems to me that if you are worried about users seeing content
> intended for other users, it isn't a private cache.
It's private as far as HTTP is concerned: private to one client application.
The fact that Web applications are supporting multiple "users" sharing the
browser cache isn't relevant.
"Two men owed money to a certain moneylender. One owed him five hundred
denarii, and the other fifty. Neither of them had the money to pay him back,
so he canceled the debts of both. Now which of them will love him more?"
Simon replied, "I suppose the one who had the bigger debt canceled." "You
have judged correctly," Jesus said. [Luke 7:41-43]
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the whatwg