L. David Baron wrote: > On Mon, 10 Dec 2001, Jonas J�rgensen wrote: > >>I strongly feel that bug 112564 [1] (Cache-Control: no-cache should not >>affect back/forward buttons) should be added as a dependency for one of >>the Mozilla 1.0 tracking bugs (bug 103705 [2] and it's dependencies). >>For the reasons why it is so important, please read the bug. >> >>I have read the Mozilla 1.0 Manifesto [3], and I do feel that I can >>stare down Slashdot and CNet and argue that this is a stop-ship problem >>if I have to. >> > It seems to me that there are substantive arguments for both sides of > the issue here. Perhaps getting a bug (of disputed validity, with > strong arguments on both sides) nominated as a Mozilla-1.0 blocker might > not be the best way to resolve a technical debate?
The current behavior is not only really bad for performance, it's also against the HTTP spec! Yes, it's only a SHOULD, but even SHOULDs shouldn't be broken unless there's a /really/ good reason for doing so. A few sites sending the wrong headers isn't enough, IMO. Substantive arguments? I see only two arguments for keeping it the way it is now: * Making silly banks happy. (Their sites are broken. Why should we deliberately make Mozilla buggy to fix bugs in *their* sites?) * We can't tell sites to use no-store instead since that will break save and view source. (That's a separate bug in Mozilla which should be fixed.) I don't feel we can ship Mozilla 1.0 before this bug is fixed. > I don't see how > staring down Slashdot and CNet is relevant here, since it seems like the > fix would be simple if it were agreed that it is the correct thing to > do. UhmokayIguessyou'rerightsonevermindforgetaboutitthen. /Jonas
