[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