|
|
Posted by John Dunlop on 10/11/12 11:21
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
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|