On 2001.04.29, Jerry Asher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm not sure why you believe the GET is unreliable, but an additional
> option is to communicate the parameters to be reused as the value of a cookie.
Both have byte size limitations which are much smaller than the
limit for POST'ed data. Typically, most browser implementations
limit URI's to 512 bytes, and the total limit of cookies (per
domain, I believe) is something like 16 kb. Of course, this is
all implementation-specific.
I think the word "unreliable" doesn't mean "broken" but
rather "varies based on external variables" which may make it
"unreliable" -- something which you cannot rely on to behave
as you'd expect in all cases.
> And, frankly, thanks for labeling the crass option as crass. That's what
> the ACS does, and I've written in several times at several stages of
> development to try and convince them to change the behavior to be a "go
> forward" and not "go back" behavior. No Joy.
At least they didn't just do a <a href="javascript:history.go(-1);">Go Back</a>
and call it "the solution" ...
- Dossy
--
Dossy Shiobara mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Panoptic Computer Network web: http://www.panoptic.com/
