Recently all of us are having problems with squid not serving certain pages/objects anymore. We do know that squid most probably does detect correct or incorrect html codes and tells it via it's error messages. But I am not so sure if this should be a squid task. Squid IMO should cache and serve what it gets from the server. The code check should be done by the browser - means incorrect code is a browser problem or a web server problem so it should be adviced by the browser not by anything in the middle. Even if the page code is buggy the page could contain objects to be cached and that is what squid should do. I say so because who use squid is an ISP or a system admin of any kind of network. So it should not turn into be this man's problem if somebody is coding his server's html pages incorrectly. He with his squid only serves his customers or his people on his network. IMO this strict html code checking is complicating network support to end customers what already was or is not so easy sometimes. We here do use transparent squid on lots of sites and soon someone complains about this kind of problem we rewrite our fwd rules so that it does not goes through squid anymore. Even if we know that the remote site owner has no interest in somebody not capable to access his site we do not have the time to talk to him. Indeed it is not our problem and we are not a html coding school teaching how to correct errors. So here we simply desist and pass by squid for such kind of sites. IMO I think it might be better for squid not checking code. Custumers say: "Without your cache I can access the site, with your cache not. I do not want to know about and if you do not resolve this problem for me I do not use you service anymore but another where it works." So even if "I" loose first my customer second they do not use squid anymore. I believe it could be considered to think about this. I like to add that we here are using squid since 97/98 and what I wrote here is not in any kind a meant as offending critic to the developers but a point to think about. So what you think about this? Hans -- _______________________________________________________ Infomatik (18)8112.7007 http://info.matik.com.br Mensagens não assinadas com GPG não são minhas. Messages without GPG signature are not from me. _______________________________________________________
Attachment:
pgpSHZs9UweOJ.pgp
Description: PGP signature
