Cache duration and response body size proposals

On Tue, 10 Nov 2020 04:30:51 +0000
trevor at rocketnine.space wrote:

> Proposal: Cache duration

> Proposal: Response body size

As suggested these basically reinvent HTTP headers in a way that's not
easily distinguishable from MIME parameters OR add exactly the kind of
global MIME parameters that RFC 2045 prohibits:

> There are NO globally-meaningful parameters that apply to all media
> types.  Truly global mechanisms are best addressed, in the MIME
> model, by the definition of additional Content-* header fields.

It's clean in implementation (old clients should be forwards
compatible insofar that they ignore MIME parameters that they don't
know, as mandated by RFC 2045) but it still doesn't conform to RFC 2045
and strikes me as a hacky solution to the problem, and at worst, a
potentially balkanizing vector for protocol extensions.

-- 
Philip
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 488 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.orbitalfox.eu/archives/gemini/attachments/20201110/d7cb
f0cc/attachment.sig>

---

Previous in thread (3 of 16): 🗣️ Johann Galle (johann.galle (a) protonmail.com)

Next in thread (5 of 16): 🗣️ Jason McBrayer (jmcbray (a) carcosa.net)

View entire thread.