>
> I thought about implementing this fix for Swiki. It wouldn't be hard to
> do; however, I'm having second thoughts. My guess is that after running
> into an edit conflict several times, MSIE users will stop using the back
> button and start using the edit button. Does anybody have some further
> thoughts/evidence on this.
That's how it worked for me. I was used to the back button while I was
using swiki.net and it took me just some time to get used to using the
edit button. Now it's fine.
-casco
>
> Peace and Luck!
>
> Je77
>
> On Thu, Oct 12, 2000 at 01:43:22AM +0200, Bo Leuf wrote:
> > I've (in ordinary wiki) tried this variation to avoid spurious conflicts,
> > tracking a page version number.
> >
> > IF edit post has same version as current version, everything is
> > fine. Save and bump up version.
> >
> > IF edit post version is less than current wiki version AND posting
> > is from same IP as current version AND this is within (arbitrary
> > but reasonable) interval, assume this is a repost from same user
> > from cached form. Allow save as before.
> >
> > ELSE flag as version conflict and ask user to reconcile any
> > differences.
> >
> > On personal wiki I use 10 minutes as interval, and also hold off RCS
> > processing for reposts by same user, figuring it's often minor
> > corrections I've made to a previous change.
> >
> > Seems to work.
> >
> > / Bo
> >
> >
> > Lex Spoon, on 11 Oct 2000, at 18:45, you wrote:
> >
> > > "Jochen F. Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > recently somebody showed me a problem with Swiki that seems to be
> > > > MSIE only. It was shown to me on a Mac running MSIE4.5. Here is how
> > > > it shows up.
> > > >
> > > > 1. edit a page
> > > > 2. save that page
> > > > 3. hit the back button to go back to that page
> > > > 4. change some more stuff
> > > > 5. save again
> > > > 6. you get an edit conflict though there shouldn't be one
> > > >
> > > > I cannot replicate this on Netscape. When the edit page comes up, I
> > > > try to inform the browser through HTTP that this should not be
> > > > cached, but apparently MSIE does not listen. What can be done?
> > > >
> > >
> > > Welllll, arguably hitting "back" should take you back to the version
> > > you actually looked at, not the most recent version of the page you
> > > looked at. So Microsoft isn't really doing something crazy here. If
> > > this argument bothers you, you might try writing a letter to Microsoft
> > > about it. But what to do in the mean time?
> > >
> > > Alternative 1: make the edit-conflict page clearer. I've never read
> > > through the whole thing, to be honest. But in this particular case,
> > > people should be able to figure out that they can just hit "save" and
> > > it will be okay.
> > >
> > > Alternative 2: make this particular case not an edit conflict. One
> > > way would be to send out a unique "edit instance" serial number
> > > whenever someone hits an edit link. Then, the new rule for an edit
> > > conflict would be "someone has tried to save after editting an old
> > > version of the page, *unless* they are saving from the same edit
> > > instance that did the last save, and the last save did not have a
> > > conflict". Something like that. It's a pain, but it should be both
> > > safe and very user friendly.
> > >
> > >
> > > -Lex
> > >
> >
