On Tue, April 25, 2006 8:56 am, tedd wrote:
> At 9:56 PM -0500 4/23/06, Richard Lynch wrote:
>>On Sun, April 23, 2006 5:25 pm, tedd wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Neither the image tag nor the file cares if there is a random
>>> number
>>> attached to the file's url. But, by doing this, most (perhaps all)
At 9:56 PM -0500 4/23/06, Richard Lynch wrote:
On Sun, April 23, 2006 5:25 pm, tedd wrote:
Neither the image tag nor the file cares if there is a random number
attached to the file's url. But, by doing this, most (perhaps all)
browsers think the image name is unique.
Doe anyone see any p
On Sun, April 23, 2006 5:25 pm, tedd wrote:
>
>
> Neither the image tag nor the file cares if there is a random number
> attached to the file's url. But, by doing this, most (perhaps all)
> browsers think the image name is unique.
>
> Doe anyone see any problems with this?
Oh, all the browsers wi
Richard:
Thank you very much for your detailed explanation -- I finally got it.
However, the solution to my problem was much easier than I had hoped.
My problem was in creating an image on the fly and then using the
same file name each time. As such, some browsers cache the image
while other
Here's the crucial info you are missing:
The URL does not have to *END* in the name of the PHP file.
The PHP file could be in the MIDDLE of the URL.
In other words, Apache is perfectly happy to take a url like this:
http://example.com/program.php/whatever_you-want=to+put_here
Example setup:
$image_file = 'foo.jpg';
$random = mt_rand(1, 20);
$url = "http://example.com/program/$random/$image_file";;
echo "
In program, if you echo out $_SERVER['PATHINFO'] you will see:
/454398574395/foo.jpg
The number will change, of course.
You can tear that apart and get the foo.jpg part to
You're also better off embedding the parameters in the URL so that it
"looks like" a directory to the browser:
http://example.com/actual_script/57823642346963/copyright/whatever.png
The PHP scritp is actual_script.
You can use .htaccess and ForceType to make Apache run it.
$_SERVER['PATH_INFO'
At 05:02 PM 4/18/2006, Richard Lynch wrote:
If you don't care that some users are not going to see what they need
to see on your site, then you just go right ahead and try it with your
caching headers.
Richard, I'm not suggesting the use of flakey cache control, but
rather the use of a differe
On Tue, April 18, 2006 6:39 pm, Paul Novitski wrote:
> At 04:12 PM 4/18/2006, Richard Lynch wrote:
>>If however, you want to be sure the browser doesn't cache the image,
>>because it is dynamic, just add some randomness to the URL.
>>
>>Technically, that means the browser WILL cache it, but you'll
At 04:12 PM 4/18/2006, Richard Lynch wrote:
If however, you want to be sure the browser doesn't cache the image,
because it is dynamic, just add some randomness to the URL.
Technically, that means the browser WILL cache it, but you'll never
use the same URL twice, so you won't really care.
Bu
Browsers are not at all reliable about caching (or not) anything other
than HTML text in terms of HTTP Headers.
Don't waste your time looking for a set of HTTP Headers that will work.
I can guarantee *SOME* user out there will have a browser that will do
the "Wrong Thing" for any set of headers y
At 03:47 PM 4/18/2006, tedd wrote:
Unfortunately, not all browsers treat an image link in the same
manner. For example, Safari and FireFox treats the link
"/images/merged.png" as a new image every time. Unfortunately, Opera
and some other browsers cache the first image and every time after
tha
Hi gang:
I wrote a program that presents a bunch of thumbnails to the users.
When the user wants to view a larger version of one of the
thumbnails, s/he simply clicks the thumbnail and another page is
displayed with the larger image -- nothing new there.
However, considering that the larger
13 matches
Mail list logo
