bie bie at 202x.moe
Sat Nov 7 03:48:00 GMT 2020
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
On Fri, Nov 06, 2020 at 05:19:18PM -0500, John Cowan wrote:
On Fri, Nov 6, 2020 at 5:11 AM Philip Linde <linde.philip at gmail.com> wrote:
I think that's the advantage of bie's suggested solution. It doesn't
require any breaking changes, and a client that doesn't recognize the
difference between codes 20 and 21 will still be fully compatible with
a server that does.
I agree, except that I am in favor of code 22 meaning "It is inadvisable to
cache this", on the assumption that most Gemini documents are static and
will continue to be so. Even on the Web, most documents are static. If
there is to be just one new code, better it should be 22. If people feel
strongly about 21, then both 21 and 22.
This reduces gemini to a simple file sharing protocol and basically saysthat dynamic content is out (unless only targeting advanced clients).
Ultimately, I like the gemini protocol just the way it is (and wouldn'tbe opposed to even a 1000 year feature freeze) but arbitrary caching byclients kills a whole host of use-cases around generated and dynamicresponses.
bie