If thats the case, one fix could be to add

<META HTTP-EQUIV="Pragma" CONTENT="no-cache">
[download]

to the HEAD section of your html.

This is wrong. Has been wrong since day one. The spec says that "Pragma" is for client to server, not server to client. That it keeps getting repeated in every online "beginners guide" doesn't make it any more right.

For a proper explanation of how wrong this is, and what you should do instead, type in "caching tutorial" into Google, which gives something like this caching tutorial as the first or second hit.

And please stop passing this cargo cult untested crap around. {sigh}

-- Randal L. Schwartz, Perl hacker

As someone who voted for the post, I'm posting here so that you can vote this down as much as you like, which I think addresses the shooting request.

When I vote for a post, I don't always vote for it because I've verified that it is technically correct (in this case, since I haven't dealt with HTML as part of a job for several years, I have not the slightest clue what's correct). Other reasons I vote for a post include 'I agree with what was said' or 'I got something out of the post'. In this case I did get something out of the post. I wrote a note to myself to read up on headers. Because the post I'm replying to includes a link to a tutorial, I'm voting for it (while at the same time, I disagree with part of it, namely that I ought to lose my voting privileges, and that I ought to be literally shot--although I don't have a problem with being shot down in exp by people who agree with meryln).

If there's a problem with why people vote, then perhaps the voting information could more clearly define what acceptable reasons for voting are. Reasons why people vote was discussed in some depth in Yet Another Post on Experience and no official guidelines resulted. Perhaps there should be further discussion and guidelines as a result?

Ps: On the thread of Killing Posts: this is just the reason why posts with a low reputation shouldn't be automatically deleted ;).

it, they can vote -- for it. They shouldn't be able to enforce their opinions with a heavy condescending hand. I don't appreciate the idea of revoking voting priviledges or much worse, physical brutality ... a little of the ol' UltraViolence (even if cynical and literarily and emotionally included for emphasis and impassioned conveyance of experience) waged against any fellow Monk. I don't doubt that merlyn has coded longer than I've lived, nor that he's got his name and work in a book that we all exonerate, however, I can't say I like his methods for "helping" many of the threads here.

Sorry to rant. I'm actually even disappointed that I'm finding myself seemingly screaming into the wind considering my relative inexperience when it comes to general coding and specific Perl hacking. Do I stand up for the way I want this forum to be run and risk my own ability to participate because I've been critical of a figurehead, a guru, a hero of Perldom? I think I must because... I care about this place. I've lerned things here and I hope that I've helped others and I want to do much more of both in the future and I want this to be the most conducive environment possible for such participation. Wall seems to have an impecable grasp on language theory when he relates the "no wrong way to hack Perl" type discourses. Some people don't know very much about certain topics or syntax or problems or applications or operating systems or anything. If they aren't bitten or ridiculed (myself included) when they have the courage to ask for help, they'll be much more likely to actually lern the things that they needed the courage to overcome in the first place. Maybe I'm being way too philosophical or sentimental or even lame about all of this. Back me up if you care to or shun me if you don't. Maybe nobody will see

If I could vote +=2 for the above post, I would. Could we make that an option in order to further demonstrate exaggerated appreciation for certain contributive efforts to our mostly wonderful (and harmless) community? I'd like to be able to vote ++ for almost everything that I agree with (to the extent of my current knowledge which is the best I can possibly do)... sometimes I'd vote for a newbie posting a very simple question to encourage further participation... maybe I'd vote for a post that I knew was wrong but had terribly well informed links or was funny or was so incredibly articulate that I just enjoyed rereading it... maybe I was just looking for any radio buttons I could find because I was in a hurry and wanted to gain XP myself.

Are any of these reasons necessarily invalid? I don't think we should be overly concerned with who really votes how until XP determines degrees of power which Monks then use to destroy some of the fabric which makes this a nice place to frequent (like the wealth of helpful && respectful && well-informed posts ... none of which are exclusive). I'm contradicting my own self and even traditional grammatical correctness whence thereforest I didst advocate increasing the potential vote amount for a particularly appreciated post and then simultaneously recommending we temper our concern for the whole voting system (especially being overly critical of other Monk's votes) ... maybe these aren't mutually exclusive either. Voting is a nice way to appreciate fellow Monks and Monkettes as the case may be (<sin/cos>Obviously there are Wonderful Woman Monks now but were women permitted in those old and Dark Days?</sin/cos>) Please excuse me. If someone doesn't like a post, they don't have to vote ++ for it. If they disagree with it or despise it or hate the author or kicked their monitor over when they read

this "RE:" x 4; anyway =(. TTFN & Shalom.

-PipTigger

p.s. Byslexia is a Ditch!
p.p.s. These post size thresholds are easy for the windy ones to breach. Would it be possible to implement a sort of "ReadMore" link at the bottom (like /.) when a long post surpasses the thresh? Thanx muchly! Time to stumbit once again. =)

That's a little harsh -- if a vote either way is that important to people, they're taking it more seriously than anyone intended it.

Besides that, the parent post wasn't entirely without merit. The shift-reload test in Netscape is one good way of testing whether it's a browser issue or a script issue. (and actually having someone point out the error in the Pragma approach is nice, because it is so widespread)