«

Dave Smithz wrote:
> This seems to be a general case for me. I thought this would type of
> limitation would be common knowledge to experts, or maybe I am still
> doing something wrong.

As Peter said, it is common knowledge. The thing is that, IIRC, Web server
(e.g. Apache or IIS) can set this limit in a configuration, so there is no
telling what is the limit in any single case.

Berislav

Peter van Schie wrote:

> About the back button: my guess is your clients are using IE 6 if I read
> your comment on the Back button behaviour.
> That's a common bug in IE6, but you can easily solve this by adding:
>
> header("Cache-control: private");

Do you think that's a good workaround?

--
Jock

John Dunlop wrote:

>>About the back button: my guess is your clients are using IE 6 if I read
>>your comment on the Back button behaviour.
>>That's a common bug in IE6, but you can easily solve this by adding:
>>
>>header("Cache-control: private");
>
>
> Do you think that's a good workaround?

I'm not sure where you want to go with this question, but yes it is a
workaround that works. From a user's perspective it's a tedious job
having to fill out a form again with the same information after using
the Back button.

--
http://www.phpforums.nl

Peter van Schie wrote:

> John Dunlop wrote:

> > [Peter van Schie wrote:]

> > > About the back button: my guess is your clients are using IE 6 if I read
> > > your comment on the Back button behaviour.
> > > That's a common bug in IE6, but you can easily solve this by adding:
> > >
> > > header("Cache-control: private");
> >
> > Do you think that's a good workaround?
>
> I'm not sure where you want to go with this question,

anywhere you like, and I'll follow.

> but yes it is a workaround that works.

Ok, if there's compelling arguments *for* that caching
directive - excluding working around IE6's bug - and less
compelling ones, if any, *against* it, why aren't you sending
it in the first place? If, on the other hand, the arguments
lead you to decide on a different value, say 'public', which
one influences you more: those arguments, or IE6's bug? (I'm
not looking for answers here, since I could care less about
individual situations; just suggesting things to think about.)

> From a user's perspective it's a tedious job having to fill out a form
> again with the same information after using the Back button.

Yes.

[By a strict interpretation of RFC2616, they'd have to fill
the form in again anyway. But I find that isn't always the
case in reality]

--
Jock

John Dunlop wrote:

> Ok, if there's compelling arguments *for* that caching
> directive - excluding working around IE6's bug -

That depends on the application.

> and less
> compelling ones, if any, *against* it

Not that I know of, so I don't see any reason to not use it.
If there are major drawbacks I'd be glad to be informed about them.

> , why aren't you sending
> it in the first place?

But I do.
I only suggested it to Dave to circumvent the "Back button problem".

> If, on the other hand, the arguments
> lead you to decide on a different value, say 'public', which
> one influences you more: those arguments, or IE6's bug? (I'm
> not looking for answers here, since I could care less about
> individual situations; just suggesting things to think about.)

As you already said; that's an individual situation issue. I can't
remember any case in which I needed both.
Besides that there are multiple ways that lead to Rome.

--
http://www.phpforums.nl

With neither quill nor qualm, "Dave Smithz" <SPAM FREE WORLD> quothed

>
> "Travis Newbury" <> wrote in message
> > Dave Smithz wrote:
> >> A PHP application I built has a section which lists a number of members
> >> to a
> >> club whose names each appear with a check box beside them that can be
> >> ticked...
> >
> > I created a webpage that solves your problem. But I, like you, will
> > not list the URL in the message...
>
> I'm not sure I understand. I cannot list the URL because it requires
> password access and has confidential data protected by data protection act
> etc.
> If you had the same problem, what was causing it and how did you solve it?

I think what he's saying is that the problem and your description of the
problem are not the same thing.

--
Neredbojias
Contrary to popular belief, it is believable.

Peter van Schie wrote:

> I only suggested it to Dave to circumvent the "Back button problem".

Ok, let me put it another way. If 'Cache-Control: private' is
appropriate and you send it, the problem you speak of won't
arise; but if it's inappropriate, should you* send it at all?


* generic 'you'.

--
Jock

On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 10:51:48 +0200, Berislav Lopac wrote:

> As Peter said, it is common knowledge. The thing is that, IIRC, Web server
> (e.g. Apache or IIS) can set this limit in a configuration, so there is no
> telling what is the limit in any single case.

It is a browser-based and not a server-based limit.

The same queries to the same server that do not work in MSIE *will* often
work in gecko-based (and other) browsers (Moz, et.al)

On a side note, this is one of the few times when, IMO, a MSIE difference
in implementation is, once agin, IMO, No Big Deal(TM). As opposed to all
the MSIE bugs in, for example, CSS rendering, this GET vs POST limitation
is not a bug but merely a particular interpretation of the W3C
recommendations. One that other browsers have interpreted more liberally.

Whatever. later...

--
JDS |
| http://www.newtnotes.com
DJMBS | http://newtnotes.com/doctor-jeff-master-brainsurgeon/