On Tue, April 25, 2006 8:56 am, tedd wrote: > At 9:56 PM -0500 4/23/06, Richard Lynch wrote: >>On Sun, April 23, 2006 5:25 pm, tedd wrote: >>> <img src="images/the_image.png?id=<?php rand(); ?>"> >>> >>> Neither the image tag nor the file cares if there is a random >>> number >>> attached to the file's url. But, by doing this, most (perhaps all) >>> browsers think the image name is unique. >>> >>> Doe anyone see any problems with this? >> >>Oh, all the browsers will KNOW it's a unique URL... >> >>But some of them won't believe it's a valid image. :-( >> >>Alas, I do not recall which browser would mess this up -- And it's >>probably so old MOST webmasters won't care... > > I ran a test through BrowserCam and surprisingly the ONLY browser > that failed to recognize the url as a valid image was Netscape 4.78 > for W2K. But, that browser is ancient. So, it works! You may want to try it with a PDF and an FDF and a Ming SWF. The reason why I advocate the URL-embedded parameters is that I'm using the SAME code over and over for images and for PDF and for FDF and for SWF (Ming) and... If you want to maintain a different code-base for all the different browser-bugs for all the different rich media (IE, not HTML output) you're all set. If you want to maintain ONE code-base that works for all rich media, and simplify your life immensely... I've been burned by too many browser oddities over the years to use GET parameters for anything other than HTML. -- Like Music? http://l-i-e.com/artists.htm -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
