[whatwg] Cache Manifest: why have NETWORK?
Anne van Kesteren
annevk at opera.com
Fri Sep 25 04:45:25 PDT 2009
On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 22:49:51 +0200, Michael Nordman <michaeln at google.com>
wrote:
> That probably makes sense too in some use cases. Without practical
> experience with this thing, its difficult to 'guess' which is of more
> use.
Really? It seems quite natural to specify a catch-all fallback namespace
and still want some resources to hit the network. I.e., as I demonstrated
with an example:
FALLBACK:
/ /offline
NETWORK:
/request
Now Ian suggested I could instead do
FALLBACK:
/request /request?fallback
/offline
... which could certainly work but would make NETWORK redundant. You
argued however that NETWORK was needed because "a fallback resource with a
mock error or empty response is busy work" While I did not quite
understand this reason I suppose having the additional fallback while a
network error should be sufficient is not great and therefore I suggested
giving non-wildcard NETWORK resources priority.
You suggest this might make sense, but I've yet to see a good argument as
to why the current approach makes sense. It certainly does not help with
the example above.
--
Anne van Kesteren
http://annevankesteren.nl/
More information about the whatwg
mailing list