> I can see your point in a perfectionist sense, I think you idea is > the best way to do it. But from a pragmatic point of view I don't > have any problem with my original set up in firefox/webkit etc. I > have never had any problems telling people "if you change the image > size then refresh the page," I have never had any problems having to > refresh the page when I do any css/js/php or images(that are loaded > with html) editing.
Fair enough... I happen to think that when you offer something like image editing to end users, you want to go as far as you can toward emulating how a local app would implement the features you offer. You'll never be able to do all that the local app can do, but maybe you can offer a few functions that behave just as well as their equivalents, plus the bonus of the user not having to re-FTP the image. > If IE didn't cache the image size, the idea of me rewriting the > filenames would never had crossed my mind. I can see that. I have specific experience with image serving, so it's something that I naturally think of on more of an abstracted/scaleable level. > Your src=null method lets me make IE behave like firefox, and I am > more than happy with firefox behavior, so I will leave it as it is. Glad to hear it. --Sandy
