Hi Roland .. I'll jump into this for a bit ...
The answer to your question: "doesn't that contradict your finding?" Answer: it's not conclusive. Your browser cached the URL, including the UserReference argument. When you brought up the page, it could have been cached anywhere between the browser and the server, including: -- the browser itself; -- your firewall / proxy; and -- any caching router in use along the net. Then, when you clicked a link, is it possible that the link which you hit did not have a UserReference attached to it, thereby causing the server to issue a new UserReference key? tks, Ian -----Original Message----- From: Roland Dumas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2003 2:59 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Witango-Talk: UserReference Findings On Wednesday, August 6, 2003, at 02:47 PM, Ben Johansen wrote: > Ok, final findings > ... > > 3. If you DO use <@USERREFERENCEARGUMENT> or any _UserReference (see > example 3) in the URL and that UserReference has expired it will > continue on using the value supplied as the new UserReference. > > my browser has the predictive URL typing habit. I was typing in the URL of a simple builder taf that uses <@USERREFERENCEARGUMENT>. The saved URL conveniently has an old userreferenceargument and prompted me to use it. I did. I then hit an action in the taf and the next page returned had a new fresh <@USERREFERENCEARGUMENT>. Doesn't that contradict your finding? ________________________________________________________________________ TO UNSUBSCRIBE: Go to http://www.witango.com/maillist.taf ________________________________________________________________________ TO UNSUBSCRIBE: Go to http://www.witango.com/maillist.taf
