Hi Chris, On Fri, 02 Dec 2005 19:21:43 -0500 Chris Shiflett <shiflett@xxxxxxx> wrote: > You might find this article helpful: > > http://shiflett.org/articles/guru-speak-nov2004 Very helpful indeed! I was mainly focused on the "Expires" header, but changing the Cache-Control output (by setting session.cache_limiter to 'private') seem to make everything work. private_no_expire could also be a possibility. I think I'll read the RFC a bit more to see which one would be the most appropate one in my situation. > This seems to conflict with the earlier statement, and I think this is > the reason for the inconsistent implementations in the industry. This > particular statement attempts to distinguish between the history > mechanism and caches, a distinction that doesn't naturally exist. Tell me about it. Earlier this evening I fell over a strange behaviour in IE, Firefox and Opera. Point one window to a URL pointing at an image. Overwrite the image with a new one. Open another window/tab and open the new image (at the same URL). Get properties for the old image in the old window. Both IE and Firefox would provide the correct information about image dimensions but would get the file size from the new image. Opera will replace the old image in runtime leading to spurious graphic updates. The whole concept about the history mechanism (and even content in current open windows) opposed to a cache is a bit mind boggling. > I don't really fault Firefox for abiding by the no-store directive, nor > do I fault Internet Explorer for ignoring it. Agreed. Furthermore, the change in cache_limiter makes very good sense in this context and doesn't seem like "just a hack". > Hope that helps. Very much. Thanks for the quick and precise reply! -- - Peter Brodersen -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
