Re: I need some guidance.
I take it this is about ordinary HTTP caching behavior, not about, say, appcache, correct? Yes. Also, it seems the issue is that you tell browsers not to cache a resource, and then expect it to be cached anyway. I tell the browser to check for freshness on page load. I expect that the resource is cached in the current instance (before any new page refreshes occur). So, yes, I expect it to be cached on any subsequent request before a page request, but no, I expect it is not cached on any subsequent refresh. In any case, a better forum for the problem might be a group specialising in HTTP caching questions. That's just it.. is saving image data before a page refresh occurs considered caching?
I need some guidance.
Hello. Please refer to the following bug report: http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=336292 In summary, all Webkit-derived browsers (excluding Safari 5.1.7 on Windows) do not do in-process (in-instance?) caching when the header is expired. Firefox, IE11 (but not IE10, I think), and Safari 5.1.7 do. Of course, I can easily set the cache to expire after some amount of time to overcome this bug, but this is not good for web development or active websites or web-apps. (you can't see the changes made right away) I can also set every image to a canvas image after loading it as an img, but that is not a really good solution either. Despite that it is, I think, a big problem in terms of website development, the Chrome project (and webkit project) developer community will only likely budge if the specification says that the current behavior is wrong. It's certainly inconsistent with IE and Firefox, but that's not enough. I cannot find any relevant W3C spec on what should be definitively done with in-process or in-instance image caching; maybe W3C image specification handles that, but I could not be positive and so my complaints fell on deaf ears in an earlier bug report. Can you clarify if the current spec speaks to the required behavior? Or, perhaps, if it doesn't, perhaps it should. Thank you, Michael Romanovsky
Re: I need some guidance.
* a...@flyingsoft.phatcode.net wrote: Please refer to the following bug report: http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=336292 In summary, all Webkit-derived browsers (excluding Safari 5.1.7 on Windows) do not do in-process (in-instance?) caching when the header is expired. Firefox, IE11 (but not IE10, I think), and Safari 5.1.7 do. I take it this is about ordinary HTTP caching behavior, not about, say, appcache, correct? Also, it seems the issue is that you tell browsers not to cache a resource, and then expect it to be cached anyway. Could you elaborate on that? In any case, a better forum for the problem might be a group specialising in HTTP caching questions, e.g. if you want to know what the HTTP specification has to say on this situation. -- Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjo...@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de 25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/
