Just wanted to pop in: November 7, 2020 8:15 PM, "Ali Fardan" <raiz at stellarbound.space> wrote: > On Sat, 7 Nov 2020 13:42:57 -0500 > John Cowan <cowan at ccil.org> wrote: > > -snip- > >> If you are browsing with netcat, caching is not even an issue. If >> nobody wanted to serve dynamic content, 22 wouldn't be useful. It is >> handy for those who do want to, to communicate their intent. No >> client and no server has to implement this. > > If 22 is explicit no caching response, how would 20 be redefined? 20 wouldn't be redefined. A status code of 20 would simply have no assumptions as to the cacheability of a resource (i.e; cache at your own risk). Meanwhile, 21 and 22 would be there for CGI, etc. that can return them. Just my two cents, Robert "khuxkm" Miles
---
Previous in thread (25 of 55): 🗣️ Ali Fardan (raiz (a) stellarbound.space)
Next in thread (27 of 55): 🗣️ Sean Conner (sean (a) conman.org)