|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Web cache article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|WikiProject Computing / Software / Websites / Hardware||(Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)|
|WikiProject Computer Security / Computing||(Rated Start-class, Low-importance)|
How does a web browser decide if the version in its internal cache is up to date? - Omegatron 16:30, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
- While some content has an explicit expiry-time set, in most cases the browser sends a special If-Modified-Since-Request to the Webserver, which replies either with a status code indicating that the browsers copy is still 'fresh' or with the updated content. --Drangon 22:43, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
A "transparent" cache in HTTP is semantically transparent. What some people mean when they say "transparent proxy" is an interception proxy. This is well-known and agreed upon in the HTTP caching community.
Similarly, the most applicable term for a "reverse" proxy in HTTP is "gateway."
It's important to keep this article focused on caching, not proxies. Also, it's important to make sure it doesn't become a billboard for any particular vendor (which is why I removed the product listing, as one particular product keeps on being aggressively added.)
mnot 13:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Redundant link to www.Web-Cache.com removed from the references
Prasanna 07:18 PM, September 08 2007 (IST)
- This is a misleading redirect and is still here. You should have been bold and removed it! I've requested deletion now. Old Man of Storr (talk) 15:31, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Split and merge
I think that the parts of this article dealing with client-side caches should be split into a new article (browser cache is currently a redirect here). If we do that, we should merge in Temporary Internet Files, which is just the Internet Explorer instance of a browser cache. « Aaron Rotenberg « Talk « 01:23, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
legality of web caches, I would like to know more
- Pacerier (talk) 06:34, 5 February 2016 (UTC): ❝
- Yea the current section regarding "legal" is exceedingly short. I think we need to elaborate on what are some of the limitations that system operators need to adhere to when they are "relinquished" from copyright liability for the purposes of caching.
- Also, are there such laws in the UK? Or is this only limited to the US?
this article incorrectly states "Google's cache link in its search results was formerly a way of retrieving information from websites that had recently gone down, or of retrieving data more quickly than by clicking the direct link. However, this feature is no longer available."
The feature is available. It has moved to the 'preview pane' as described on this site:
- Or Noscript. All the best.
Adios Googlebot Chromebot compatible, no cache, no hack, what a lie, what a speed!!! As for actual beauty, maybe the Louvre some day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 05:53, 30 September 2012 (UTC)