[11528] in www-talk@info.cern.ch
Re: Enforce reloading of page when using the back-button
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Grahame Grieve)
Thu Mar 9 04:53:27 2000
Message-Id: <4.1.20000309203139.00a77a90@10.252.1.60>
Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2000 20:37:29 +1100
To: www-talk@w3c.org
From: Grahame Grieve <grahame@kestral.com.au>
In-Reply-To: <38C73464.94C9C150@w3.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Resent-From: www-talk@w3.org
Hi all
John wrote
>For something like that the universal browser isn't up to the job,
>it sounds like either ship the user a modified browser or do it in
>a plugin/applet.
(btw, thanks for digging out that thread)
But if you're going to do that, why muck around with html/http in the
first place? might as well just write a real application in the first
place. Then you don't have to deal with brain-dead user input problems,
POST problems, printing problems, etc.
>This is because they don't realise that
>users are already too sophisticated to be controlled.
Which users are these? your user population is rather different to
mine ;-)
Dan wrote,
>OK... thanks. Now I understand your motivation.
>>From a purely architectural/technical point of view, I agree
>with others here who have suggested that your
>issue is with the user agent, not with the HTTP
>protocol. But I infer that your system engineering
>constraints prescribe particular user agents. Sigh...
You got it. But the HTTP spec could've helped out a little
more than it does. (not that I'd be caught criticising a
world beater spec like http)
>Actually, I find quite explicit protocol support in HTTP 1.1 for this
>case:
>
>"private
> Indicates that all or part of the response message is intended for a
single user
> and MUST NOT be cached by a shared cache. This allows an origin server to
> state that the specified parts of the
> response are intended for only one user and are not a valid response for
> requests by other users. A private (non-shared) cache MAY cache the
response.
>
> Note: This usage of the word private only controls where the response
may be
> cached, and cannot ensure the privacy of the message content. "
>
>-- http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec14.html#sec14.9.1
Oh wow. No I do feel dumb. I'll take my bat and ball and retreat to the corner.
(and figure out how to force v1.1 for some pages only)
Grahame
