Daniel Veditz wrote: > Jonas J�rgensen wrote: > >>Substantive arguments? I see only two arguments for keeping it the way >>it is now: >>* Making silly banks happy. (Their sites are broken. Why should we >>deliberately make Mozilla buggy to fix bugs in *their* sites?) >> > > That may be argument enough if banks can't be convinced to do it another > way, and if IE doesn't support the other way then they probably can't.
CMIIW, but IE does support Cache-Control: no-store correctly... -- /Jonas
