Re: lynx-dev THANKS AND QUESTION

[pg]

In a recent note, Klaus Weide said:

> Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2000 08:43:34 -0600 (CST)
> 
> On Sun, 2 Jan 2000 address@hidden wrote:
> 
> > certainly made sense in the Bad Old Days when pages were cached in
> > rendered form.  It seems to make less sense now that they're cached in
> > source form.
> 
> Bad Old Days??
> Pages aren now cached in source form instead of in rendered form????
> 
> Sorry, but *that* is silliness.
> Maybe you turn on SOURCE_CACHE for yourself.  Apparently you don't mind
> the bugs.  That doesn't mean that that kind of caching has
> completely superseded the "rendered form" caching.
> 
Oops.  Tripped up in an inconsistency.  I usually argue the minimalist
POV; I believe when source caching was debated, I took the side of
leaving caching to a proxy.  But, yes, when it became available I
turned it on -- for better or for worse, the development effort had
already been spent.  You're provoking me to reconsider.

But, as long as you acknowledge bugs in the facility, I deem it one
of the bugs that d(ownload) bypasses the source cache.

-- gil
-- 
StorageTek
INFORMATION made POWERFUL