Using, for example, <%= javascript_include_tag ''prototype'' %> results in <script src="/javascripts/prototype.js?1164912447" type="text/javascript"></script> I take it the number 1164912447 is the timestamp of the file (in seconds since the epoch) Isn''t it redundant to include this information? Isn''t part of the HTTP protocol to check whether the client already has an up-to-date version of the file requested? In other words, why doesn''t <%= javascript_include_tag ''prototype'' %> just produce <script src="/javascripts/prototype.js" type="text/javascript"></script> without the timestamp? Stephan -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
> Using, for example, > > <%= javascript_include_tag ''prototype'' %> > > results in > > <script src="/javascripts/prototype.js?1164912447" > type="text/javascript"></script> > > I take it the number 1164912447 is the timestamp of the file (in seconds > since the epoch) > > Isn''t it redundant to include this information? Isn''t part of the HTTP > protocol to check whether the client already has an up-to-date version > of the file requested? > > In other words, why doesn''t > > <%= javascript_include_tag ''prototype'' %> > > just produce > > <script src="/javascripts/prototype.js" type="text/javascript"></script> > > without the timestamp?Because not all browsers pay attention to that... or they decide to cache it for X hours/days on their own and don''t even bother to check. Adding the ?123123 forces the browser to try again. -philip --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
> Because not all browsers pay attention to that...Pay attention to what? You mean there are browsers that cache for "too long"? Which browsers are the ones you are referring to?> Adding the ?123123 forces the browser to try again.You mean they will reload always? Stephan -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Stephan Wehner wrote:> Which browsers are the ones you are referring to?In my experience, some times IE cached too much, and annoyed me when I was developing pages. -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---