[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: lynx-dev caching after \ (was why reload etc?)
From: |
Jacob Poon |
Subject: |
Re: lynx-dev caching after \ (was why reload etc?) |
Date: |
Wed, 8 Jul 1998 16:48:42 -0400 |
On Wed, 8 Jul 1998, Jacob Poon wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Jul 1998, Philip Webb wrote:
>
> > 980707 Bela Lubkin wrote:
> > > David Woolley wrote:
> > >> there is a strong lobby to have the code added by some DOS/Windows users.
> > > I'm not a DOS/Windows user
> > > and I'm strongly in favor of Lynx caching unmodified source pages.
> >
> > the basic problem here is not programming or system considerations,
> > but the shape of debate at lynx-dev, which immediately gets confused.
> > there are TWO SEPARATE issues, with different reactions:
> >
> > (1) should Lynx cache ALL source files?
> > -- there seems to be strong feeling by users with limited resources
> > that this would not be useful enough to justify the load involved;
>
> I would say yes, because you can't correctly generate the source from the
> rendered URI, but the opposite is quite possible.
OK, actually I am confused about the definition of 'source files'. If you
only mean viewable URIs but not the inline pics, background music, etc. it
links to, then it is still yes; but if you include non-viewable URIs, then
it is no for most of the time, and yes only when cache is large enough.
But still, even for non-viewable URIs, the contents should still be
buffered if user has enough resource to spare. Anyway, better rephrase
this question to avoid confusion.
> > (2) should Lynx cache JUST THOSE source files obtained by \ ?
> > -- some of us believe this would indeed be very useful
> > when trying to track down what's wrong with someone's bad HTML
> > & would not happen often enough to overload anyone's system.
>
> I would say no for that one, unless explicitly told not to or
> cache is too small for storing rendered pages.
Still no, even with revised meanings of 'source files'.