Firefox still caching.

I have tried the defacto:

header("Cache-Control: no-cache, must-revalidate"); // HTTP/1.1
header("Expires: Mon, 26 Jul 1997 05:00:00 GMT"); // Date in the past

....but Firefox keeps on caching results form a POST'd form.

Anyone know of any tricks or other headers to send to tame Firefox's cache?

-Lost

Re: Firefox still caching.

"-Lost" wrote in message
news:-_CdnfFdUfW8WpbbnZ2dnUVZ_silnZ2d@comcast.com...
|I have tried the defacto:
|
| header("Cache-Control: no-cache, must-revalidate"); // HTTP/1.1
| header("Expires: Mon, 26 Jul 1997 05:00:00 GMT"); // Date in the past
|
| ...but Firefox keeps on caching results form a POST'd form.
|
| Anyone know of any tricks or other headers to send to tame Firefox's
cache?

there is NO guarantee that ANYTHING you do will have an effect on the
browser. that's just the way it is. you should also set pragma params and
put meta-pragma directives at the top AND bottom of your html. microsoft had
a whole long write-up on that one b/c their own browser didn't behave as web
designers thought it should - they of course offered their explanation of
why things were/are the way they were/are...but, at least they gave that as
a plausible solution.

hth,

me

btw, how do you KNOW ff is caching?

Re: Firefox still caching. Slightly OT: Apache woes.

"Steve" wrote in message news:4PQOh.20$Ai4.7@newsfe06.lga...
>
> "-Lost" wrote in message
> news:-_CdnfFdUfW8WpbbnZ2dnUVZ_silnZ2d@comcast.com...
> |I have tried the defacto:
> |
> | header("Cache-Control: no-cache, must-revalidate"); // HTTP/1.1
> | header("Expires: Mon, 26 Jul 1997 05:00:00 GMT"); // Date in the past
> |
> | ...but Firefox keeps on caching results form a POST'd form.
> |
> | Anyone know of any tricks or other headers to send to tame Firefox's
> cache?
>
> there is NO guarantee that ANYTHING you do will have an effect on the
> browser. that's just the way it is.

Of course. I just thought there might be some existing known kludges.

> you should also set pragma params and
> put meta-pragma directives at the top AND bottom of your html.

Placing meta information at the bottom? Before the BODY I imagine? Is that valid?

> microsoft had
> a whole long write-up on that one b/c their own browser didn't behave as web
> designers thought it should - they of course offered their explanation of
> why things were/are the way they were/are...but, at least they gave that as
> a plausible solution.

Thanks. Does that write-up exist still, or no?

> btw, how do you KNOW ff is caching?

It continuously takes a refresh or two (of the form page) before I get my POST'd results
to display the updated value. I figure it had to be Firefox as the PHP context simply
dumps the contents of $_POST. If my variable was continually in error, it must have been
Firefox sending it right?

Or some combination of me not setting the correct headers, assuming there are any that
will make a difference.

http://us3.php.net/manual/en/function.header.php#72652

Led me to believe it might actually be an Apache issue. I did however try using
MultiViews as "guesswho" suggested to no avail. I am not familiar with any other content
negotiation mechanisms of Apache.

*shrugs*

-Lost

Re: Firefox still caching. Slightly OT: Apache woes.

| Placing meta information at the bottom? Before the BODY I imagine? Is
that valid?

'valid' only applies to browsers that are 100% w3c compliant. as NONE exist,
the better question is always, 'will it make my browser explode?' we're not
going to kill anything here. but, we will be getting the desired result.

put the first meta in the head like a good boi. put the next meta just
before .

| > microsoft had
| > a whole long write-up on that one b/c their own browser didn't behave as
web
| > designers thought it should - they of course offered their explanation
of
| > why things were/are the way they were/are...but, at least they gave that
as
| > a plausible solution.
|
| Thanks. Does that write-up exist still, or no?

sure does...now google. ;^)

| > btw, how do you KNOW ff is caching?
|
| It continuously takes a refresh or two (of the form page) before I get my
POST'd results
| to display the updated value. I figure it had to be Firefox as the PHP
context simply
| dumps the contents of $_POST. If my variable was continually in error, it
must have been
| Firefox sending it right?

well, that depends (answered much like a good lawyer). without code, it is
hard to tell you anything. however, i can most assuredly tell you that
submitting a form is a one-time deal. the browser sends the data to php...so
THAT has NOTHING to do with ff caching anything. refreshing the page after
the first submit only results in that same data being posted to php again
through the same vehicle/mechanisms as were in play for the first submit.

from your description, the problem is with your code...not your browser.

| Or some combination of me not setting the correct headers, assuming there
are any that
| will make a difference.
|
| http://us3.php.net/manual/en/function.header.php#72652
|
| Led me to believe it might actually be an Apache issue. I did however try
using
| MultiViews as "guesswho" suggested to no avail. I am not familiar with
any other content
| negotiation mechanisms of Apache.

always, always, always start debugging from simple to complex. accusing
apache right off the bat is almost obscene. assume first, that YOU are in
error and that that error is cause by the most SIMPLE thing. that approach
will save you copious volumes of time in development hours.

Re: Firefox still caching.

-Lost wrote:
> I have tried the defacto:
>
> header("Cache-Control: no-cache, must-revalidate"); // HTTP/1.1
> header("Expires: Mon, 26 Jul 1997 05:00:00 GMT"); // Date in the past
>
> ...but Firefox keeps on caching results form a POST'd form.
>
> Anyone know of any tricks or other headers to send to tame Firefox's cache?

Did you change the Firefox settings to not cache? Thats the only way you can
be sure of that the page won't be cached if you have turned off the browsers
cache yourself.

--

//Aho

Re: Firefox still caching.

"Steve" wrote in message news:HiROh.25$Ai4.11@newsfe06.lga...
>| Placing meta information at the bottom? Before the BODY I imagine? Is
> that valid?
>
> 'valid' only applies to browsers that are 100% w3c compliant. as NONE exist,
> the better question is always, 'will it make my browser explode?' we're not
> going to kill anything here. but, we will be getting the desired result.
>
> put the first meta in the head like a good boi. put the next meta just
> before .
>
> | > microsoft had
> | > a whole long write-up on that one b/c their own browser didn't behave as
> web
> | > designers thought it should - they of course offered their explanation
> of
> | > why things were/are the way they were/are...but, at least they gave that
> as
> | > a plausible solution.
> |
> | Thanks. Does that write-up exist still, or no?
>
> sure does...now google. ;^)
>
> | > btw, how do you KNOW ff is caching?
> |
> | It continuously takes a refresh or two (of the form page) before I get my
> POST'd results
> | to display the updated value. I figure it had to be Firefox as the PHP
> context simply
> | dumps the contents of $_POST. If my variable was continually in error, it
> must have been
> | Firefox sending it right?
>
> well, that depends (answered much like a good lawyer). without code, it is
> hard to tell you anything. however, i can most assuredly tell you that
> submitting a form is a one-time deal. the browser sends the data to php...so
> THAT has NOTHING to do with ff caching anything. refreshing the page after
> the first submit only results in that same data being posted to php again
> through the same vehicle/mechanisms as were in play for the first submit.

The code is thus:

if($_POST)
{
foreach($_POST as $index => $value)
{
print $index . ' : ' . $value . '
' . "\n";
}
}

That is it.

At one point I did however set a Cache-Control and Expires header in the script first.

> from your description, the problem is with your code...not your browser.

See above.

> | Or some combination of me not setting the correct headers, assuming there
> are any that
> | will make a difference.
> |
> | http://us3.php.net/manual/en/function.header.php#72652
> |
> | Led me to believe it might actually be an Apache issue. I did however try
> using
> | MultiViews as "guesswho" suggested to no avail. I am not familiar with
> any other content
> | negotiation mechanisms of Apache.
>
> always, always, always start debugging from simple to complex. accusing
> apache right off the bat is almost obscene. assume first, that YOU are in
> error and that that error is cause by the most SIMPLE thing. that approach
> will save you copious volumes of time in development hours.

Duly noted.

-Lost

Re: Firefox still caching.

"J.O. Aho" wrote in message news:5726hsF297mqiU2@mid.individual.net...
> -Lost wrote:
>> I have tried the defacto:
>>
>> header("Cache-Control: no-cache, must-revalidate"); // HTTP/1.1
>> header("Expires: Mon, 26 Jul 1997 05:00:00 GMT"); // Date in the past
>>
>> ...but Firefox keeps on caching results form a POST'd form.
>>
>> Anyone know of any tricks or other headers to send to tame Firefox's cache?
>
> Did you change the Firefox settings to not cache? Thats the only way you can
> be sure of that the page won't be cached if you have turned off the browsers
> cache yourself.

Fair point, I did eventually remember to do that. I disabled it via Web Developer
(Firefox extension) and the problem persists.

Maybe it is in the PHP code?

-Lost

Re: Firefox still caching.

-Lost wrote:
> "J.O. Aho" wrote in message news:5726hsF297mqiU2@mid.individual.net...
>> -Lost wrote:

>>> Anyone know of any tricks or other headers to send to tame Firefox's cache?
>> Did you change the Firefox settings to not cache? Thats the only way you can
>> be sure of that the page won't be cached if you have turned off the browsers
>> cache yourself.
>
> Fair point, I did eventually remember to do that. I disabled it via Web Developer
> (Firefox extension) and the problem persists.

Sure the plug-in does work with the version of FF you have? Could just be it
don't do anything at all.

If you are using a proxy, the proxy may keep cache.


> Maybe it is in the PHP code?

I don't know how your development environment looks like, but I forgot to send
my update to the server and started to wonder why nothing changed, no matter
what I changed in the source...

If you don't trust your browser, you can use wget to fetch the page and then
you can use diff to see what's different between two fetches.

--

//Aho

Re: Firefox still caching.

| The code is thus:

the code is this?

;^)

| if($_POST)
| {
| foreach($_POST as $index => $value)
| {
| print $index . ' : ' . $value . '
' . "\n";
| }
| }

how about this instead? ;^)

print_r($_POST)

| That is it.
|
| At one point I did however set a Cache-Control and Expires header in the
script first.

however, no, that is not it. the code that generates the html with the form
that is doing the posting.

| > from your description, the problem is with your code...not your browser.
|
| See above.

see above.

Re: Firefox still caching.

"Steve" wrote in message news:KvWOh.43$qe1.9@newsfe04.lga...
>| The code is thus:
>
> the code is this?
>
> ;^)

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=thus

1 and 5.

Neener neener neener! : P

> | if($_POST)
> | {
> | foreach($_POST as $index => $value)
> | {
> | print $index . ' : ' . $value . '
' . "\n";
> | }
> | }
>
> how about this instead? ;^)
>
> print_r($_POST)

Sure. Dumped it that way initially. Still no change.

> | That is it.
> |
> | At one point I did however set a Cache-Control and Expires header in the
> script first.
>
> however, no, that is not it. the code that generates the html with the form
> that is doing the posting.
>
> | > from your description, the problem is with your code...not your browser.
> |
> | See above.
>
> see above.

OK, if I understood that correctly, I need to set the headers via the meta tag in my HTML
not in the PHP at all?

Thanks for bearing this with patience (until I catch up).

NOTE!: Um... I just noticed it is not doing it anymore! The only thing I have done is
update:

Firefox from 1.5.0.10 to 1.5.0.11
NoScript extension to the latest version.

(No, I refuse to upgrade to Firefox 2.x. (Yet.))

Now I am really confused. Everything is now working as if setting the headers via meta in
my HTML worked. (And for the record I do not set anymore cache headers via PHP. I am
just print_r'ing $_POST.)

-Lost

Re: Firefox still caching.

"-Lost" wrote in message
news:obydncE5nPSgwJHbnZ2dnUVZ_sudnZ2d@comcast.com...
| "Steve" wrote in message
news:KvWOh.43$qe1.9@newsfe04.lga...
| >| The code is thus:
| >
| > the code is this?
| >
| > ;^)
|
| http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=thus
|
| 1 and 5.
|
| Neener neener neener! : P

NO, NO, NO !!!

it is the part of speech you're having problems with. 'thus' is an ADVERB,
'this' is a PRONOUN. the word in question is the direct object of a
sentence...which we all know must be either a NOUN or, you guessed it, a
PRONOUN...

'thus', i am correct...and 'the code is this.'

| > | if($_POST)
| > | {
| > | foreach($_POST as $index => $value)
| > | {
| > | print $index . ' : ' . $value . '
' . "\n";
| > | }
| > | }
| >
| > how about this instead? ;^)
| >
| > print_r($_POST)
|
| Sure. Dumped it that way initially. Still no change.

ok...just k.i.s.s for me. ;^)

| > | That is it.
| > |
| > | At one point I did however set a Cache-Control and Expires header in
the
| > script first.
| >
| > however, no, that is not it. the code that generates the html with the
form
| > that is doing the posting.
| >
| > | > from your description, the problem is with your code...not your
browser.
| > |
| > | See above.
| >
| > see above.
|
| OK, if I understood that correctly, I need to set the headers via the meta
tag in my HTML
| not in the PHP at all?

just show me the code (if there is any) that produces the html from which
your form is defined and submitted. right now, based on your description, i
think the problem is with your code and NOT with caching. so, let's start
simply first. we'll go on from there.

| Thanks for bearing this with patience (until I catch up).

no biggie. ;^)

| NOTE!: Um... I just noticed it is not doing it anymore! The only thing I
have done is
| update:
|
| Firefox from 1.5.0.10 to 1.5.0.11
| NoScript extension to the latest version.
|
| (No, I refuse to upgrade to Firefox 2.x. (Yet.))
|
| Now I am really confused. Everything is now working as if setting the
headers via meta in
| my HTML worked. (And for the record I do not set anymore cache headers
via PHP. I am
| just print_r'ing $_POST.)

are you sure that was all that was changed? if so, please post all the
details for my future reference (in case i or someone else has the problem
again).

cheers.

Re: Firefox still caching.

|| >| The code is thus:
|| >
|| > the code is this?
|| >
|| > ;^)
||
|| http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=thus
||
|| 1 and 5.
||
|| Neener neener neener! : P
|
| NO, NO, NO !!!
|
| it is the part of speech you're having problems with. 'thus' is an ADVERB,
| 'this' is a PRONOUN. the word in question is the direct object of a
| sentence...which we all know must be either a NOUN or, you guessed it, a
| PRONOUN...
|
| 'thus', i am correct...and 'the code is this.'

btw, the best test when in doubt is to rearrange the sentence using the same
words. of these two, which do you now believe is right?

thus is the code. (indicates a reason for the code's state of being)

this is the code. (states that what is referenced [what you posted] is the
code)

sorry, i'm just a language nut. ;^)

Re: Firefox still caching.

"Steve" wrote in message news:5fZOh.533$vJ5.528@newsfe12.lga...
> || >| The code is thus:
> || >
> || > the code is this?
> || >
> || > ;^)
> ||
> || http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=thus
> ||
> || 1 and 5.
> ||
> || Neener neener neener! : P
> |
> | NO, NO, NO !!!
> |
> | it is the part of speech you're having problems with. 'thus' is an ADVERB,
> | 'this' is a PRONOUN. the word in question is the direct object of a
> | sentence...which we all know must be either a NOUN or, you guessed it, a
> | PRONOUN...
> |
> | 'thus', i am correct...and 'the code is this.'
>
> btw, the best test when in doubt is to rearrange the sentence using the same
> words. of these two, which do you now believe is right?
>
> thus is the code. (indicates a reason for the code's state of being)
>
> this is the code. (states that what is referenced [what you posted] is the
> code)
>
> sorry, i'm just a language nut. ;^)

No, that is totally acceptable. English was never my strength in school.

Thanks for the clarification.

Oh, and I believe the second is right.

-Lost

Re: Firefox still caching.

"Steve" wrote in message news:mbZOh.532$vJ5.348@newsfe12.lga...
>
> "-Lost" wrote in message
> news:obydncE5nPSgwJHbnZ2dnUVZ_sudnZ2d@comcast.com...
> | "Steve" wrote in message
> news:KvWOh.43$qe1.9@newsfe04.lga...
> | >| The code is thus:
> | >
> | > the code is this?
> | >
> | > ;^)
> |
> | http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=thus
> |
> | 1 and 5.
> |
> | Neener neener neener! : P
>
> NO, NO, NO !!!
>
> it is the part of speech you're having problems with. 'thus' is an ADVERB,
> 'this' is a PRONOUN. the word in question is the direct object of a
> sentence...which we all know must be either a NOUN or, you guessed it, a
> PRONOUN...
>
> 'thus', i am correct...and 'the code is this.'
>
> | > | if($_POST)
> | > | {
> | > | foreach($_POST as $index => $value)
> | > | {
> | > | print $index . ' : ' . $value . '
' . "\n";
> | > | }
> | > | }
> | >
> | > how about this instead? ;^)
> | >
> | > print_r($_POST)
> |
> | Sure. Dumped it that way initially. Still no change.
>
> ok...just k.i.s.s for me. ;^)

K.I.S.S.'d just for you.

http://foomanchu.com/test_for_js_server-side.htm is the form (with metas).
http://foomanchu.com/test_for_js_server-side.php has *THIS* code:

print_r($_POST);
?>




....and that is *everything.*

> | > | That is it.
> | > |
> | > | At one point I did however set a Cache-Control and Expires header in
> the
> | > script first.
> | >
> | > however, no, that is not it. the code that generates the html with the
> form
> | > that is doing the posting.
> | >
> | > | > from your description, the problem is with your code...not your
> browser.
> | > |
> | > | See above.
> | >
> | > see above.
> |
> | OK, if I understood that correctly, I need to set the headers via the meta
> tag in my HTML
> | not in the PHP at all?
>
> just show me the code (if there is any) that produces the html from which
> your form is defined and submitted. right now, based on your description, i
> think the problem is with your code and NOT with caching. so, let's start
> simply first. we'll go on from there.

See above. : )

> | Thanks for bearing this with patience (until I catch up).
>
> no biggie. ;^)
>
> | NOTE!: Um... I just noticed it is not doing it anymore! The only thing I
> have done is
> | update:
> |
> | Firefox from 1.5.0.10 to 1.5.0.11
> | NoScript extension to the latest version.
> |
> | (No, I refuse to upgrade to Firefox 2.x. (Yet.))
> |
> | Now I am really confused. Everything is now working as if setting the
> headers via meta in
> | my HTML worked. (And for the record I do not set anymore cache headers
> via PHP. I am
> | just print_r'ing $_POST.)
>
> are you sure that was all that was changed? if so, please post all the
> details for my future reference (in case i or someone else has the problem
> again).

In the exact order:

The last update was to the HTML (form page). I added:




Nothing else. I continued refreshing and playing with it.

Turn JavaScript on, submit, get true.
Turn JavaScript off, submit, sometimes get true again.
Refresh a thousand times (with JavaScript off) and finally get false.

The main problem here was it showing me true, after turning JavaScript back off.

Then: updated Firefox and NoScript (and HTML Validator).

Came back from eating sushi, played with it, and saw that it updated each time.

Turn JavaScript on, submit, get true.
Turn JavaScript off, submit, get false.
Repeat.

Hope that was clear enough (because I still don't know what cleared it up).

Thanks again.

-Lost

Re: Firefox still caching.

"-Lost" wrote in message
news:UI6dnXHucOE87ZHbnZ2dnUVZ_rOqnZ2d@comcast.com...
> "Steve" wrote in message news:mbZOh.532$vJ5.348@newsfe12.lga...
>>
>> "-Lost" wrote in message
>> news:obydncE5nPSgwJHbnZ2dnUVZ_sudnZ2d@comcast.com...
>> | "Steve" wrote in message
>> news:KvWOh.43$qe1.9@newsfe04.lga...
>> | >| The code is thus:
>> | >
>> | > the code is this?
>> | >
>> | > ;^)
>> |
>> | http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=thus
>> |
>> | 1 and 5.
>> |
>> | Neener neener neener! : P
>>
>> NO, NO, NO !!!
>>
>> it is the part of speech you're having problems with. 'thus' is an ADVERB,
>> 'this' is a PRONOUN. the word in question is the direct object of a
>> sentence...which we all know must be either a NOUN or, you guessed it, a
>> PRONOUN...
>>
>> 'thus', i am correct...and 'the code is this.'
>>
>> | > | if($_POST)
>> | > | {
>> | > | foreach($_POST as $index => $value)
>> | > | {
>> | > | print $index . ' : ' . $value . '
' . "\n";
>> | > | }
>> | > | }
>> | >
>> | > how about this instead? ;^)
>> | >
>> | > print_r($_POST)
>> |
>> | Sure. Dumped it that way initially. Still no change.
>>
>> ok...just k.i.s.s for me. ;^)
>
> K.I.S.S.'d just for you.
>
> http://foomanchu.com/test_for_js_server-side.htm is the form (with metas).
> http://foomanchu.com/test_for_js_server-side.php has *THIS* code:
>
> > print_r($_POST);
> ?>
>

>
>
> ...and that is *everything.*
>
>> | > | That is it.
>> | > |
>> | > | At one point I did however set a Cache-Control and Expires header in
>> the
>> | > script first.
>> | >
>> | > however, no, that is not it. the code that generates the html with the
>> form
>> | > that is doing the posting.
>> | >
>> | > | > from your description, the problem is with your code...not your
>> browser.
>> | > |
>> | > | See above.
>> | >
>> | > see above.
>> |
>> | OK, if I understood that correctly, I need to set the headers via the meta
>> tag in my HTML
>> | not in the PHP at all?
>>
>> just show me the code (if there is any) that produces the html from which
>> your form is defined and submitted. right now, based on your description, i
>> think the problem is with your code and NOT with caching. so, let's start
>> simply first. we'll go on from there.
>
> See above. : )
>
>> | Thanks for bearing this with patience (until I catch up).
>>
>> no biggie. ;^)
>>
>> | NOTE!: Um... I just noticed it is not doing it anymore! The only thing I
>> have done is
>> | update:
>> |
>> | Firefox from 1.5.0.10 to 1.5.0.11
>> | NoScript extension to the latest version.
>> |
>> | (No, I refuse to upgrade to Firefox 2.x. (Yet.))
>> |
>> | Now I am really confused. Everything is now working as if setting the
>> headers via meta in
>> | my HTML worked. (And for the record I do not set anymore cache headers
>> via PHP. I am
>> | just print_r'ing $_POST.)
>>
>> are you sure that was all that was changed? if so, please post all the
>> details for my future reference (in case i or someone else has the problem
>> again).
>
> In the exact order:
>
> The last update was to the HTML (form page). I added:
>
>
>
>
> Nothing else. I continued refreshing and playing with it.
>
> Turn JavaScript on, submit, get true.
> Turn JavaScript off, submit, sometimes get true again.
> Refresh a thousand times (with JavaScript off) and finally get false.
>
> The main problem here was it showing me true, after turning JavaScript back off.
>
> Then: updated Firefox and NoScript (and HTML Validator).
>
> Came back from eating sushi, played with it, and saw that it updated each time.
>
> Turn JavaScript on, submit, get true.
> Turn JavaScript off, submit, get false.
> Repeat.
>
> Hope that was clear enough (because I still don't know what cleared it up).
>
> Thanks again.

And lastly (just now) I changed the pragma-directive to pragma. Don't know what the heck
I was thinking there (but I guess it is obvious the meta pragma didn't do it).

That line again is:



-Lost

Re: Firefox still caching.

"-Lost" wrote in message
news:lZedncdaSbEa85HbnZ2dnUVZ_qarnZ2d@comcast.com...
| "Steve" wrote in message
news:5fZOh.533$vJ5.528@newsfe12.lga...
| > || >| The code is thus:
| > || >
| > || > the code is this?
| > || >
| > || > ;^)
| > ||
| > || http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=thus
| > ||
| > || 1 and 5.
| > ||
| > || Neener neener neener! : P
| > |
| > | NO, NO, NO !!!
| > |
| > | it is the part of speech you're having problems with. 'thus' is an
ADVERB,
| > | 'this' is a PRONOUN. the word in question is the direct object of a
| > | sentence...which we all know must be either a NOUN or, you guessed it,
a
| > | PRONOUN...
| > |
| > | 'thus', i am correct...and 'the code is this.'
| >
| > btw, the best test when in doubt is to rearrange the sentence using the
same
| > words. of these two, which do you now believe is right?
| >
| > thus is the code. (indicates a reason for the code's state of being)
| >
| > this is the code. (states that what is referenced [what you posted] is
the
| > code)
| >
| > sorry, i'm just a language nut. ;^)
|
| No, that is totally acceptable. English was never my strength in school.
|
| Thanks for the clarification.
|
| Oh, and I believe the second is right.

i was just being a smart-ass...but, the 'neener neener neener' kind of
spurred on the application.

now if i could just figure out how to capitalize and spell... ;^)

cheers.

Re: Firefox still caching.

| In the exact order:
|
| The last update was to the HTML (form page). I added:
|
|
|
|
| Nothing else. I continued refreshing and playing with it.
|
| Turn JavaScript on, submit, get true.
| Turn JavaScript off, submit, sometimes get true again.
| Refresh a thousand times (with JavaScript off) and finally get false.
|
| The main problem here was it showing me true, after turning JavaScript
back off.
|
| Then: updated Firefox and NoScript (and HTML Validator).
|
| Came back from eating sushi, played with it, and saw that it updated each
time.
|
| Turn JavaScript on, submit, get true.
| Turn JavaScript off, submit, get false.
| Repeat.
|
| Hope that was clear enough (because I still don't know what cleared it
up).
|
| Thanks again.

no problem. try this as your html. i used ie and my results were:

array()
back

anyway, try this just for grins and giggles (note the removal of the xml tag
and placement of the js):

"http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd">

Re: Firefox still caching.

"Steve" wrote in message news:4w0Ph.3123$Ai4.2706@newsfe06.lga...
>
> "-Lost" wrote in message
> news:lZedncdaSbEa85HbnZ2dnUVZ_qarnZ2d@comcast.com...
> | "Steve" wrote in message
> news:5fZOh.533$vJ5.528@newsfe12.lga...
> | > || >| The code is thus:
> | > || >
> | > || > the code is this?
> | > || >
> | > || > ;^)
> | > ||
> | > || http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=thus
> | > ||
> | > || 1 and 5.
> | > ||
> | > || Neener neener neener! : P
> | > |
> | > | NO, NO, NO !!!
> | > |
> | > | it is the part of speech you're having problems with. 'thus' is an
> ADVERB,
> | > | 'this' is a PRONOUN. the word in question is the direct object of a
> | > | sentence...which we all know must be either a NOUN or, you guessed it,
> a
> | > | PRONOUN...
> | > |
> | > | 'thus', i am correct...and 'the code is this.'
> | >
> | > btw, the best test when in doubt is to rearrange the sentence using the
> same
> | > words. of these two, which do you now believe is right?
> | >
> | > thus is the code. (indicates a reason for the code's state of being)
> | >
> | > this is the code. (states that what is referenced [what you posted] is
> the
> | > code)
> | >
> | > sorry, i'm just a language nut. ;^)
> |
> | No, that is totally acceptable. English was never my strength in school.
> |
> | Thanks for the clarification.
> |
> | Oh, and I believe the second is right.
>
> i was just being a smart-ass...but, the 'neener neener neener' kind of
> spurred on the application.

Again, totally acceptable. It was implied that I would have to deal with whatever
instigation I presented having to deal with repercusions.

> now if i could just figure out how to capitalize and spell... ;^)

You do it on purpose. Do not lie. : )

-Lost

Re: Firefox still caching.

"Steve" wrote in message news:VF0Ph.3319$Ai4.2733@newsfe06.lga...
>| In the exact order:
> |
> | The last update was to the HTML (form page). I added:
> |
> |
> |
> |
> | Nothing else. I continued refreshing and playing with it.
> |
> | Turn JavaScript on, submit, get true.
> | Turn JavaScript off, submit, sometimes get true again.
> | Refresh a thousand times (with JavaScript off) and finally get false.
> |
> | The main problem here was it showing me true, after turning JavaScript
> back off.
> |
> | Then: updated Firefox and NoScript (and HTML Validator).
> |
> | Came back from eating sushi, played with it, and saw that it updated each
> time.
> |
> | Turn JavaScript on, submit, get true.
> | Turn JavaScript off, submit, get false.
> | Repeat.
> |
> | Hope that was clear enough (because I still don't know what cleared it
> up).
> |
> | Thanks again.
>
> no problem. try this as your html. i used ie and my results were:
>
> array()
> back

Which is exactly what I received from Firefox.

> anyway, try this just for grins and giggles (note the removal of the xml tag
> and placement of the js):
>
> > "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd">
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Re: Firefox still caching.

[snip]
>> now if i could just figure out how to capitalize and spell... ;^)
[snip]

You mean 'capitalise'? lol... you americans crack me up.

Re: Firefox still caching.

"asdf" wrote in message
news:460ca105$0$7422$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.ne t.au...
> [snip]
>>> now if i could just figure out how to capitalize and spell... ;^)
> [snip]
>
> You mean 'capitalise'? lol... you americans crack me up.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=capitalize

"Also, especially British, cap·i·tal·ise."

Your Brits crack me up. : )

Seriously though, English was not my first language so I am quite proud of the
advancements I have made, regardless of what England and Britain think of my gains.

Believe this or not, I was at one point in my life contemplating using standard "British."

That is capitalise, colour, and other such "oddities."

A Cajun (from Louisiana) told me that I was a "coon" because of that. Hence, my adherence
to standard American English.

-Lost

P.S. I have been drinking. Most or all of what I have conveyed is best ignored by
humans.

Re: Firefox still caching.

Message-ID: from -Lost
contained the following:

>>
>> You mean 'capitalise'? lol... you americans crack me up.
>
>http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=capitalize
>
>"Also, especially British, cap·i·tal·ise."
>
>Your Brits crack me up. : )
>
>Seriously though, English was not my first language so I am quite proud of the
>advancements I have made, regardless of what England and Britain think of my gains.
>
>Believe this or not, I was at one point in my life contemplating using standard "British."
>
>That is capitalise, colour, and other such "oddities."
>
>A Cajun (from Louisiana) told me that I was a "coon" because of that. Hence, my adherence
>to standard American English.

Odd. In Britain a 'coon' is a derogatory name for a black person.

--
Geoff Berrow 0110001001101100010000000110
001101101011011001000110111101100111001011
100110001101101111001011100111010101101011

Re: Firefox still caching.

| >A Cajun (from Louisiana) told me that I was a "coon" because of that.
Hence, my adherence
| >to standard American English.
|
| Odd. In Britain a 'coon' is a derogatory name for a black person.

hmmm...so there is common ground at last, between the language of the states
and the uk. lol. ;^)

Re: Firefox still caching.

"-Lost" wrote in message
news:haadneq2G8W1ApHbnZ2dnUVZ_q-vnZ2d@comcast.com...
| "Steve" wrote in message
news:VF0Ph.3319$Ai4.2733@newsfe06.lga...
| >| In the exact order:
| > |
| > | The last update was to the HTML (form page). I added:
| > |
| > |
| > |
| > |
| > | Nothing else. I continued refreshing and playing with it.
| > |
| > | Turn JavaScript on, submit, get true.
| > | Turn JavaScript off, submit, sometimes get true again.
| > | Refresh a thousand times (with JavaScript off) and finally get false.
| > |
| > | The main problem here was it showing me true, after turning JavaScript
| > back off.
| > |
| > | Then: updated Firefox and NoScript (and HTML Validator).
| > |
| > | Came back from eating sushi, played with it, and saw that it updated
each
| > time.
| > |
| > | Turn JavaScript on, submit, get true.
| > | Turn JavaScript off, submit, get false.
| > | Repeat.
| > |
| > | Hope that was clear enough (because I still don't know what cleared it
| > up).
| > |
| > | Thanks again.
| >
| > no problem. try this as your html. i used ie and my results were:
| >
| > array()
| > back
|
| Which is exactly what I received from Firefox.
|
| > anyway, try this just for grins and giggles (note the removal of the xml
tag
| > and placement of the js):
| >
| > | > "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd">
| >
| >
| >
| >
| >
| >
| >
| >
| >
| >

| >
| >
| >
| >
| >
| >

Re: Firefox still caching.

Message-ID: from Steve contained the
following:

>| >A Cajun (from Louisiana) told me that I was a "coon" because of that.
>Hence, my adherence
>| >to standard American English.
>|
>| Odd. In Britain a 'coon' is a derogatory name for a black person.
>
>hmmm...so there is common ground at last, between the language of the states
>and the uk. lol. ;^)

I'm still confused. Do black people in America use UK English spellings?

--
Geoff Berrow 0110001001101100010000000110
001101101011011001000110111101100111001011
100110001101101111001011100111010101101011

Re: Firefox still caching.

"Geoff Berrow" wrote in message
news:5ogp03l5e83hfdjnncj63ijtmp9n2umusr@4ax.com...
> Message-ID: from Steve contained the
> following:
>
>>| >A Cajun (from Louisiana) told me that I was a "coon" because of that.
>>Hence, my adherence
>>| >to standard American English.
>>|
>>| Odd. In Britain a 'coon' is a derogatory name for a black person.
>>
>>hmmm...so there is common ground at last, between the language of the states
>>and the uk. lol. ;^)
>
> I'm still confused. Do black people in America use UK English spellings?

No, not offhand. However, I am a Caribbean-born English-speaking American who was at odds
as to what language-specific spellings I should adhere to.

However, as far as I know, like Steve conjectured, "coon" is a derogatory label for a
Black or African American character.

I am a Black or African American (or Caribbean-born) character myself.

The "coon" is derogatory, be it American English or otherwise.

The Louisiana "coon" term represents slightly different aspects, but most assuredly does
not imply a derogatory label.

-Lost

Re: Firefox still caching.

"Steve" wrote in message news:BC2Ph.5802$Ai4.5801@newsfe06.lga...
>
> "-Lost" wrote in message
> news:haadneq2G8W1ApHbnZ2dnUVZ_q-vnZ2d@comcast.com...
> | "Steve" wrote in message
> news:VF0Ph.3319$Ai4.2733@newsfe06.lga...
> | >| In the exact order:
> | > |
> | > | The last update was to the HTML (form page). I added:
> | > |
> | > |
> | > |
> | > |
> | > | Nothing else. I continued refreshing and playing with it.
> | > |
> | > | Turn JavaScript on, submit, get true.
> | > | Turn JavaScript off, submit, sometimes get true again.
> | > | Refresh a thousand times (with JavaScript off) and finally get false.
> | > |
> | > | The main problem here was it showing me true, after turning JavaScript
> | > back off.
> | > |
> | > | Then: updated Firefox and NoScript (and HTML Validator).
> | > |
> | > | Came back from eating sushi, played with it, and saw that it updated
> each
> | > time.
> | > |
> | > | Turn JavaScript on, submit, get true.
> | > | Turn JavaScript off, submit, get false.
> | > | Repeat.
> | > |
> | > | Hope that was clear enough (because I still don't know what cleared it
> | > up).
> | > |
> | > | Thanks again.
> | >
> | > no problem. try this as your html. i used ie and my results were:
> | >
> | > array()
> | > back
> |
> | Which is exactly what I received from Firefox.
> |
> | > anyway, try this just for grins and giggles (note the removal of the xml
> tag
> | > and placement of the js):
> | >
> | > > | > "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd">
> | >
> | >
> | >
> | >
> | >
> | >
> | >
> | >
> | >
> | >

> | >
> | >
> | >
> | >
> | >
> | >

Re: Firefox still caching.

Message-ID: from -Lost
contained the following:

>> I'm still confused. Do black people in America use UK English spellings?
>
>No, not offhand. However, I am a Caribbean-born English-speaking American who was at odds
>as to what language-specific spellings I should adhere to.
>
>However, as far as I know, like Steve conjectured, "coon" is a derogatory label for a
>Black or African American character.
>
>I am a Black or African American (or Caribbean-born) character myself.
>
>The "coon" is derogatory, be it American English or otherwise.
>
>The Louisiana "coon" term represents slightly different aspects, but most assuredly does
>not imply a derogatory label.

I'm not sure that's helped me much. I'm just trying to stifle the urge
to post a rather racist joke about pigeons...

Hope the hangover isn't too bad :-)

--
Geoff Berrow 0110001001101100010000000110
001101101011011001000110111101100111001011
100110001101101111001011100111010101101011

Re: Firefox still caching.

| I'm not sure that's helped me much. I'm just trying to stifle the urge
| to post a rather racist joke about pigeons...


i would assume, geoff, that you are white given the hint of great guilt in
that reluctance. a great number of jokes exist that highlight stereo-types
or characteristics of other cultures. i think we're mature enough to hear
it - and laugh - if it's not hateful. ;^)

Re: Firefox still caching.

Message-ID: from Steve contained the
following:

>| I'm not sure that's helped me much. I'm just trying to stifle the urge
>| to post a rather racist joke about pigeons...
>
>
>i would assume, geoff, that you are white given the hint of great guilt in
>that reluctance. a great number of jokes exist that highlight stereo-types
>or characteristics of other cultures. i think we're mature enough to hear
>it - and laugh - if it's not hateful. ;^)

Hateful is very much in the eye of the beholder don't you think? I'm
not racist and one of the great things about Usenet is that race doesn't
matter as much and your colour is a secret unless you choose otherwise.
It is logical to assume I'm white, given my name, location and what I
said in an earlier post, but I'm actually a dog. ;-)

It's quite an old joke and so is out of it's time. It comes from a time
when it was unusual to see a black face. The word coon doesn't seem to
be used so much these days.

Anyway, without wishing to cause offence to anyone and only because you
ask, here is the joke.

A young black immigrant goes to work at a building site. After about a
week he goes to the foreman and says "I'm sorry boss, I just can't work
here any more".

"Why" asks his boss, "you're a good worker I'd be sorry to see you go.
Is it the work?"

"No, it's not the work".

"Is it the other men than? Are they giving you a hard time".

"No, the men are great".

"Well what is it then?" asks the boss.

"It's them racist pigeons" says the young man. "I can't stand it".

The boss is amazed. "Racist pigeons?"

"Yes", says the man, "all day long they go 'Look at the coon, look at
the coon, look at the coon...'"

--
Geoff Berrow 0110001001101100010000000110
001101101011011001000110111101100111001011
100110001101101111001011100111010101101011

Re: Firefox still caching.

"Geoff Berrow" wrote in message
news:hk4q03povud82o7h5bls3ukjt6f185er04@4ax.com...
| Message-ID: from Steve contained the
| following:
|
| >| I'm not sure that's helped me much. I'm just trying to stifle the urge
| >| to post a rather racist joke about pigeons...
| >
| >
| >i would assume, geoff, that you are white given the hint of great guilt
in
| >that reluctance. a great number of jokes exist that highlight
stereo-types
| >or characteristics of other cultures. i think we're mature enough to hear
| >it - and laugh - if it's not hateful. ;^)
|
| Hateful is very much in the eye of the beholder don't you think? I'm
| not racist and one of the great things about Usenet is that race doesn't
| matter as much and your colour is a secret unless you choose otherwise.
| It is logical to assume I'm white, given my name, location and what I
| said in an earlier post, but I'm actually a dog. ;-)
|
| It's quite an old joke and so is out of it's time. It comes from a time
| when it was unusual to see a black face. The word coon doesn't seem to
| be used so much these days.
|
| Anyway, without wishing to cause offence to anyone and only because you
| ask, here is the joke.
|
| A young black immigrant goes to work at a building site. After about a
| week he goes to the foreman and says "I'm sorry boss, I just can't work
| here any more".
|
| "Why" asks his boss, "you're a good worker I'd be sorry to see you go.
| Is it the work?"
|
| "No, it's not the work".
|
| "Is it the other men than? Are they giving you a hard time".
|
| "No, the men are great".
|
| "Well what is it then?" asks the boss.
|
| "It's them racist pigeons" says the young man. "I can't stand it".
|
| The boss is amazed. "Racist pigeons?"
|
| "Yes", says the man, "all day long they go 'Look at the coon, look at
| the coon, look at the coon...'

lol. here in the states though, we would call that a 'groaner'. i just
happen to have an adequately dry sense of humor...or is it, humour?

cheers.

Re: Firefox still caching.

Message-ID: from Steve contained the
following:

>| "Yes", says the man, "all day long they go 'Look at the coon, look at
>| the coon, look at the coon...'
>
>lol. here in the states though, we would call that a 'groaner'. i just
>happen to have an adequately dry sense of humor...or is it, humour?

It's humour in the newsgroup I created. :-)

uk.rec.humour

--
Geoff Berrow 0110001001101100010000000110
001101101011011001000110111101100111001011
100110001101101111001011100111010101101011

Re: Firefox still caching.

"Geoff Berrow" wrote in message
news:rsdq03hjkedn886e2i61cak6mu399igkt4@4ax.com...
| Message-ID: from Steve contained the
| following:
|
| >| "Yes", says the man, "all day long they go 'Look at the coon, look at
| >| the coon, look at the coon...'
| >
| >lol. here in the states though, we would call that a 'groaner'. i just
| >happen to have an adequately dry sense of humor...or is it, humour?
|
| It's humour in the newsgroup I created. :-)
|
| uk.rec.humour

that's awesome.

btw, how does one create a ng anyway? i've always wondered that.

Re: Firefox still caching.

"Steve" wrote in message news:ZPaPh.89$7_3.62@newsfe02.lga...
>
> "Geoff Berrow" wrote in message
> news:rsdq03hjkedn886e2i61cak6mu399igkt4@4ax.com...
> | Message-ID: from Steve contained the
> | following:
> |
> | >| "Yes", says the man, "all day long they go 'Look at the coon, look at
> | >| the coon, look at the coon...'
> | >
> | >lol. here in the states though, we would call that a 'groaner'. i just
> | >happen to have an adequately dry sense of humor...or is it, humour?
> |
> | It's humour in the newsgroup I created. :-)
> |
> | uk.rec.humour
>
> that's awesome.
>
> btw, how does one create a ng anyway? i've always wondered that.

I was going to ask the same question.

And I agree with Steve (again). We are adult enough (most of us) to not take offense.

Hell, I do not even understand the joke! : ) I guess it has something to do with the
type of noise a pigeon makes?

Oh, and thanks Geoff. I have a small headache, but otherwise survived the tequila. It
has been a LONG time since I drank an entire 5th by myself.

The wife is to blame. She did not feel up to drinking and hard-headed dolt that I am
decides I should drink for both of us.

-Lost

Re: Firefox still caching.

Message-ID: <9c6dnRUv7PE0WpDbnZ2dnUVZ_t-mnZ2d@comcast.com> from -Lost
contained the following:

>> |
>> | It's humour in the newsgroup I created. :-)
>> |
>> | uk.rec.humour
>>
>> that's awesome.
>>
>> btw, how does one create a ng anyway? i've always wondered that.
>
>I was going to ask the same question.

It depends on the hierarchy. Some (free.*, alt.* ) are a free for all
and anyone can issue a control message. Whether providers act upon it
is another matter. uk.* is a managed hierarchy (of which I am a
committee member, but anyone can create a group) An RFD is created,
discussed in uk.net.news.config and if there is enough support control
(who is appointed by the elected committee) issues a control message.
Hopefully, news service providers act on it and the group is created.
>
>And I agree with Steve (again). We are adult enough (most of us) to not take offense.
>
>Hell, I do not even understand the joke! : ) I guess it has something to do with the
>type of noise a pigeon makes?

You got it dude.
>
>Oh, and thanks Geoff. I have a small headache, but otherwise survived the tequila. It
>has been a LONG time since I drank an entire 5th by myself.

I'm not much of a drinker and so don't know how much a 5th is..:-} I
suppose it depends on the size of a whole one...
>
>The wife is to blame. She did not feel up to drinking and hard-headed dolt that I am
>decides I should drink for both of us.

Well you had little choice. :-)

I'm off on holiday fro a week today. Try to manage without me for a
while.

--
Geoff Berrow 0110001001101100010000000110
001101101011011001000110111101100111001011
100110001101101111001011100111010101101011

Re: Firefox still caching.

When I made alt.binaries.pictures.orchids (and a few others) the hardest
part was writing the custom header information for the control message. Past
that its as simple as sending an e-mail and waiting for the group to
propogate.

"Steve" wrote in message
news:ZPaPh.89$7_3.62@newsfe02.lga...
>
> "Geoff Berrow" wrote in message
> news:rsdq03hjkedn886e2i61cak6mu399igkt4@4ax.com...
> | Message-ID: from Steve contained the
> | following:
> |
> | >| "Yes", says the man, "all day long they go 'Look at the coon, look at
> | >| the coon, look at the coon...'
> | >
> | >lol. here in the states though, we would call that a 'groaner'. i just
> | >happen to have an adequately dry sense of humor...or is it, humour?
> |
> | It's humour in the newsgroup I created. :-)
> |
> | uk.rec.humour
>
> that's awesome.
>
> btw, how does one create a ng anyway? i've always wondered that.
>
>