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
4 matches
Mail list logo
