Caching and status codes

[khuxkm at tilde.team]

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