Session or browser problem??

There are no clients in widespread use that behave the way you
describe. This is an http issue, not html.

On Oct 30, 8:32 am, Jerry Stuckle <jstuck...@attglobal.net> wrote:
> petersprc wrote:
> > On Oct 29, 6:24 am, Jerry Stuckle <jstuck...@attglobal.net> wrote:
> >> petersprc wrote:
>
> >> > Try using session_cache_limiter('nocache') before session_start. This
> >> > will tell the browser not to cache the page.
>
> >> > Regards,
> >> > John Peters
>
> >> (Top posting fixed)
>
> >> Which the browser can ignore, unfortunately. And even if the browser
> >> doesn't ignore the cache, any of the systems between the client and the
> >> server could cache it.
>
> >> How I wish it did work properly.
>
> >> P.S. Please don't top post.
>
> > This combination of headers will be honored by most hosts/proxies. In
> > a situation where it's not, you can try using URL-based sessions or
> > putting your site under https.
> >
>
> (Top posting fixed - again).
>
> Not necessarily. Some do, some don't. And in some cases it depends on
> the browser settings. The same is true with https:.
>
> But this should be discussed in alt.html - this is not a PHP problem.
>
> And again - please don't top post. This group uses bottom posting or
> interwoven posting.
>
> --
> ==================
> Remove the "x" from my email address
> Jerry Stuckle
> JDS Computer Training Corp.
> jstuck...@attglobal.net
> ==================

petersprc wrote:
> On Oct 30, 8:32 am, Jerry Stuckle <jstuck...@attglobal.net> wrote:
>> petersprc wrote:
>>> On Oct 29, 6:24 am, Jerry Stuckle <jstuck...@attglobal.net> wrote:
>>>> petersprc wrote:
>>>> > Try using session_cache_limiter('nocache') before session_start. This
>>>> > will tell the browser not to cache the page.
>>>> > Regards,
>>>> > John Peters
>>>> (Top posting fixed)
>>>> Which the browser can ignore, unfortunately. And even if the browser
>>>> doesn't ignore the cache, any of the systems between the client and the
>>>> server could cache it.
>>>> How I wish it did work properly.
>>>> P.S. Please don't top post.
>> > This combination of headers will be honored by most hosts/proxies. In
>> > a situation where it's not, you can try using URL-based sessions or
>> > putting your site under https.
>> >
>>
>> (Top posting fixed - again).
>>
>> Not necessarily. Some do, some don't. And in some cases it depends on
>> the browser settings. The same is true with https:.
>>
>> But this should be discussed in alt.html - this is not a PHP problem.
>>
>> And again - please don't top post. This group uses bottom posting or
>> interwoven posting.
>>
> There are no clients in widespread use that behave the way you
> describe. This is an http issue, not html.
>

From someone who can't learn not to top post.

You're right, http is involved. But the nocache command is an html tag
and governs how the browser and hosts operate.

And you really should learn about clients and hosts.

A. Maybe because they're too lazy to go to the end of the message before
posting.
Q. So why do they do it?
A. Because it upsets the flow of the conversation
Q. Why is top posting bad?
A. People who top post.
Q. Who are the most annoying people on usenet?


--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

This is incorrect. The no-cache keyword is an http directive not an
html tag. See the spec:

http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/...html#sec14.9.1
http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.0/spec.html#Pragma

You may be thinking of the meta tag which can be used to accomplish
roughly the same thing but is not as reliable.

> You're right, http is involved. But the nocache command is an html tag
> and governs how the browser and hosts operate.
>
> And you really should learn about clients and hosts.
>
> A. Maybe because they're too lazy to go to the end of the message before
> posting.
> Q. So why do they do it?
> A. Because it upsets the flow of the conversation
> Q. Why is top posting bad?
> A. People who top post.
> Q. Who are the most annoying people on usenet?
>
> --
> ==================
> Remove the "x" from my email address
> Jerry Stuckle
> JDS Computer Training Corp.
> jstuck...@attglobal.net
> ==================

petersprc wrote:
>> You're right, http is involved. But the nocache command is an html tag
>> and governs how the browser and hosts operate.
>>
>> And you really should learn about clients and hosts.
>>
>> A. Maybe because they're too lazy to go to the end of the message before
>> posting.
>> Q. So why do they do it?
>> A. Because it upsets the flow of the conversation
>> Q. Why is top posting bad?
>> A. People who top post.
>> Q. Who are the most annoying people on usenet?
>>
> This is incorrect. The no-cache keyword is an http directive not an
> html tag. See the spec:
>
> http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/...html#sec14.9.1
> http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.0/spec.html#Pragma
>
> You may be thinking of the meta tag which can be used to accomplish
> roughly the same thing but is not as reliable.
>


If you can't learn not to top post, I'm not going to discuss this with
you any further.

As I said before. The standard for this newsgroup is bottom or
interwoven posting. You will get few people to talk to you here if you
continue to top post.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

there is no "standard" posting style as long as it's clear and
understandable! top-posting is fine. bottom-posting is good too. it's a
matter of individual preference.... your whining is way off-topic. this has
nothing to do with the OP's question.

--Jackie S

"Jerry Stuckle" <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote
> As I said before. The standard for this newsgroup is bottom or interwoven
> posting. You will get few people to talk to you here if you continue to
> top post.

On 31/10/2007 in message <13ig9nsqr2ak39d@news.supernews.com> Jackie Silva
wrote:

>there is no "standard" posting style as long as it's clear and
>understandable! top-posting is fine. bottom-posting is good too. it's a
>matter of individual preference.... your whining is way off-topic. this
>has nothing to do with the OP's question.

It would be more accurate to say that relative newcomers are unaware of
the conventions, or the reasons for them.

Try a Google for 'netiquette'.


>--Jackie S

There's also a standard for signature separators, you don't meet that
either.

--
Jeff Gaines Damerham Hampshire UK
This is as bad as it can get, but don't bet on it

On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 07:55:43 +0100, Jackie Silva <maritanlito@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> "Jerry Stuckle" <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote
>> As I said before. The standard for this newsgroup is bottom or
>> interwoven
>> posting. You will get few people to talk to you here if you continue to
>> top post.
> there is no "standard" posting style as long as it's clear and
> understandable! top-posting is fine. bottom-posting is good too. it's a
> matter of individual preference.... your whining is way off-topic. this
> has
> nothing to do with the OP's question.

Argument has been done over and over again. Do you use OE Quotefix? If
not: install that thingy, it will whip MSOE in shape, acting more like a
standard newsreader, and a lot will become clear.
--
Rik Wasmus

Jackie Silva wrote:
> "Jerry Stuckle" <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote
>> As I said before. The standard for this newsgroup is bottom or interwoven
>> posting. You will get few people to talk to you here if you continue to
>> top post.
>
>
>
> there is no "standard" posting style as long as it's clear and
> understandable! top-posting is fine. bottom-posting is good too. it's a
> matter of individual preference.... your whining is way off-topic.
this has
> nothing to do with the OP's question.
>
> --Jackie S
>

(Top posting fixed)

Yes, there is, and you have to look at each newsgroup. The standard in
this newsgroup is bottom or interwoven posting.

It's a matter of *group* preference, not *individual* preference.

But continue top posting - you won't get a lot of response.

And your comment added absolutely nothing to the conversation - except
to show you don't understand what you're doing.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

On Oct 31, 2:17 pm, Jerry Stuckle <jstuck...@attglobal.net> wrote:
> Jackie Silva wrote:
> > "Jerry Stuckle" <jstuck...@attglobal.net> wrote
> >> As I said before. The standard for this newsgroup is bottom or interwoven
> >> posting. You will get few people to talk to you here if you continue to
> >> top post.
>
> > there is no "standard" posting style as long as it's clear and
> > understandable! top-posting is fine. bottom-posting is good too. it's a
> > matter of individual preference.... your whining is way off-topic.
> this has
> > nothing to do with the OP's question.
> >
> > --Jackie S
> >
>
> (Top posting fixed)
>
> Yes, there is, and you have to look at each newsgroup. The standard in
> this newsgroup is bottom or interwoven posting.
>
> It's a matter of *group* preference, not *individual* preference.
>
> But continue top posting - you won't get a lot of response.
>
> And your comment added absolutely nothing to the conversation - except
> to show you don't understand what you're doing.
>
> --
> ==================
> Remove the "x" from my email address
> Jerry Stuckle
> JDS Computer Training Corp.
> jstuck...@attglobal.net
> ==================

I think tat my problem has gone way out of d picture here.

Anyways, somehow got the problem solved just by including few lines of
code at the point of logout.The IE browser was always takin the copy
of d referrin page frm the cache after logout and not frm the
server.Hence,to bypass d cache,i always appended a parameter to the
referring URL tat has a random values.Tis tuk care tat the browser
always sends a new request to the server for the referring page and ll
display the logged out status.

References : http://www.rgagnon.com/jsdetails/js-0014.html
http://www.crackajax.net/cachebust.php

there are multiple posting conventions used on usenet. read up:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style

your arguments against one posting style are based on the original techical
limitations of usenet.

"Jeff Gaines" <jgaines_newsid@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:xn0fd3igc2joqxj000@news.individual.net...
> On 31/10/2007 in message <13ig9nsqr2ak39d@news.supernews.com> Jackie Silva
> wrote:
>
>>there is no "standard" posting style as long as it's clear and
>>understandable! top-posting is fine. bottom-posting is good too. it's a
>>matter of individual preference.... your whining is way off-topic. this
>>has nothing to do with the OP's question.
>
> It would be more accurate to say that relative newcomers are unaware of
> the conventions, or the reasons for them.
>
> Try a Google for 'netiquette'.
>
>
>>--Jackie S
>
> There's also a standard for signature separators, you don't meet that
> either.
>
> --
> Jeff Gaines Damerham Hampshire UK
> This is as bad as it can get, but don't bet on it