On 5 May 2005, at 3:02 pm, Walter Underwood wrote:
PaceCaching was not discussed and rejected based on false information. It was rejected because it was HTTP-specific (it is not), and because it was non-core (similar features are common in other RSS specs).
It does not interact with other features, so it should be a fairly clean, quick discussion.
Unless we can make providing incorrect or misleading information in either of these elements lead to the immediate purging of first born, they're not at all useful to anyone. The "expires date" can't apply to 99% of feeds since they don't work on a fixed or predictable schedule. Meanwhile "max-age" doesn't provide any actionable information to caches, beyond "I chose this random number off the top of my head when I wrote my Atom script 3 years ago. Deal." Do you seriously expect it to be interpreted as a promise that the feed won't change for the next x minutes?
Graham
