|
|
Posted by robert on 05/19/06 23:33
"Drakazz" <vykintas.narmontas@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:1148064445.191451.268050@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
| Fafhrd: If you have read correctly, you wouldn't have written this
| post;
| This is to be sent to the user at the download. So if their cache
| contains the old images, it wouldn't download the new ones.
| I don't think there's anything you could do apart from in your <img>
| tags, adding ?1 after the image extension in the source. This will
| cause the browser to download a new image, because the URL has changed.
| If you don't want to do that, then I think you're not gonna be happy :(
drakazz...given you are not a native english speaker, i'll let you know that
your response sounds rude, which i'm sure was not your intention.
as far as fafhrd's response...he is *correct*! i'm wondering if you know
what the op's dilemma is. using headers is the best means of telling a
browser how to cache, or when not to at all. not only can you specifically
tell a browser not to cache but you can put an expiration on the image if it
is (the exp. date being in the past already)...if one of those directives
doesn't work, the other usually will. there are additional headers that can
be sent to further define caching...but these two usually do the trick.
as for whether or not a particular browser actually (or properly) handles
our instructions...that's another story. ms' ie, as advised by microsoft,
sometimes not only needs the header but meta tags as well. not only that,
but meta tags at the start of the document AND at the end of the document.
all browsers handle caching in their own particular manner.
cheers,
me
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|