[mixonic]

Sorry :-( You are correct. What I described is not be behavior of the bfcache, it is the network behavior described under the heading "In practice". And there is a link there to a server that can help you play with the behavior.

Apologies for using the wrong term and causing confusion.

> This is not necessarily what users want (as evidenced by discussions on this post).

HN not being representative of an average user aside, I don't disagree. My point is that there are two different expectations of what should happen and they can conflict and cause errors.

> you're complaining it doesn't work

I'm really sad you got that impression. I'm fascinated and think this an architectural problem of the web. My post is an attempt to describe the issue and raise awareness.

[Manishearth]

>it is the network behavior described under the heading "In practice". And there is a link there to a server that can help you play with the behavior.

Right, except requests aren't being made there, it's just that the devtools seem to say that they are. The scenario you gave as an example (with the /names API call and whatnot) isn't possible AFAICT. Maybe I misread something?

> My point is that there are two different expectations

Yeah, agreed, there are two expectations here.

APIs that let you explicitly invalidate bfcache entries (something on pushState() maybe?) or detect bfcache loads would be interesting, and would let SPAs deal with this problem, perhaps.