How about 'web page buffer'? 

I don't really like 'temporary files', because I think there's no need
to bother the user with the fact that we're using files, and whether
or not they are temporary.

I think "buffer" is less understood than "cache". Why do we even want
to  mention the cache anyway? It's an implementation detail.

The usefulness of the cache size pref has been discussed here:
http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=113285

Ok my dumb opinion is that in this case working around the technical
term just make thing worst.
Anyway I think we should ask the doc guys. I dont really know who cc,
Dave maybe you do ?

ccing eugene maybe he will have something to say about this bug.

> The usefulness of the cache size pref has been discussed here:
> http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=113285

That seems to decide that it is not useful.

Murray: Correction, we decided that the cache prefs with the exception
of the cache disk size were useless. The disk size pref is necessary
in large installs were a user may have a limited amount of space. That
said, it is much more of an adminish pref than a user pref, however
for the time being the consensus was that we should keep ui for it.

I think "Temporary files" is best here. It seems to be agreed above
that the user will see the cache/temporary files functionality. In
this case, I think it is best to avoid the
harder-to-understand-for-a-first-time-user term "cache", and use the
more easily comprehensible "temporary files".

So it would became:

Temporary Files
     Size ___________ Clear

Maybe Size should be renamed too ? Disk space or something ?
Or is it ok this way ?

Dave, any opinion on this ? 31 is getting near ;)

I agree with eugene.

Ok, but the prob now is:
Size ___________ Clear Cache

Should we change it ? I guess at least s/Clear Cache/Clear.
But does (Temporary Files) Size make sense ?

fixed in cvs. I used "Disk space", if it sucks just let me know ;)