[apps-discuss] Call for feedback: HTML application cache
Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> Thu, 28 October 2010 13:00 UTC
Return-Path: <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5FF8E3A69C6 for <apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 Oct 2010 06:00:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -104.935
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.935 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-2.336, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UySBv4a1BY4O for <apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 Oct 2010 06:00:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.gmx.net (mailout-de.gmx.net [213.165.64.22]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id AAD303A69C4 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Thu, 28 Oct 2010 06:00:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 28 Oct 2010 13:01:49 -0000
Received: from mail.greenbytes.de (EHLO [192.168.1.146]) [217.91.35.233] by mail.gmx.net (mp044) with SMTP; 28 Oct 2010 15:01:49 +0200
X-Authenticated: #1915285
X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1+ZDPx1ACOZJLvKrZgZtwzOo18SXDc4+UuZQ1nvc8 0NohSHk3nCvcF5
Message-ID: <4CC97437.8010002@gmx.de>
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 15:01:43 +0200
From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.11) Gecko/20101013 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.5
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, IETF Apps Discuss <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0
Subject: [apps-discuss] Call for feedback: HTML application cache
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 13:00:02 -0000
Hi, the HTML5 spec contains a mechanism for offline web applications, see <http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/Overview.html#offline>. There are concerns that this may be a use case which could better be handled using existing HTTP caching mechanisms (potentially + extensions). Also, Section 5.6.4 (<http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/Overview.html#downloading-or-updating-an-application-cache>) states: "Note: HTTP caching rules, such as Cache-Control: no-store, are ignored for the purposes of the application cache download process." which might be interpreted as a violation of HTTP requirements (see <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc2616.html#rfc.section.14.9.1>): "If the no-cache directive does not specify a field-name, then a cache MUST NOT use the response to satisfy a subsequent request without successful revalidation with the origin server. This allows an origin server to prevent caching even by caches that have been configured to return stale responses to client requests." The HTML WG has an open issue related to this (<http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/121>), with a CP (Change Proposal) due October 30. Is anybody with *both* HTTP and Web Application background willing to review this section and help with a Change Proposal if needed? (We probably can negotiate a deadline extension if there's a chance to get this right). Best regards, Julian
- [apps-discuss] Call for feedback: HTML applicatio… Julian Reschke