I guess you didn't read the message where I noted the cache-related headers that the software put out which the idiot browsers (the browsers are the idiots, not the users) are using to annoy users, and implicitly suggested that the person responsible for putting them in in the first place should explain their exact purpose so that a cleaner way to do the same without causing other problems for users can be found.
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
On Wed, 6 Nov 2002, Erik Zachte wrote:
Get real. This is the world we live in: web designers will have to adjust to their user base not vice
versa.
Erik Zachte
How silly of me to suggest to someone who is clearly looking for a better browsing experience a way to achieve it. brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
Nope. The W3C sets standards and websites and browsers follow them. If the people who program web browsers *don't* follow them, then it's unfortunate that the end-user gets caught in the crossfire. But there are now plenty of free, (fairly) compliant browsers out there, such as Mozilla: not that big a download on a modem & easy to install. Ditch IE and be free :-) Tarquin.
Vibber, Tarquin, my final reaction on this. I'll try to explain the problem once more. It should sink in finally. What good is it gonna do for database congestion when I adopt lets say Opera and 3000 others don't ? Will that give me faster article retrievals and less timeouts on article updates? Your 'solution' reminds me of the old days when Mac's and PC's did not cooperate too well on e.g. data sharing, and Apple fans said: "This problem is easy to solve: everyone should buy a Mac."
MS Explorer is not perfect by any means, just a de facto standard for years to come, that is all.
There are probably better ways to solve the performance problems than my suggestion. I do not count starry-eyed idealism among those. Erik Zachte
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@wikipedia.org http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l