> I read on w3 that they suggest 'post' for when there are no
> visible changes, and 'get' when there are (or perhaps the other way
> around). This seems a bit confusing. What is the difference in
> laymen's terms?
Other way around.
GET is to be used when there is no side effect.
e.g. when submitting a search query, when asking for one's bank balance
or otherwise fetching info. The browser uses the GET method to fetch
HTML docs, images, and everything else except forms which specify a
different method.
POST is to be used when there is a side effect.
e.g. when updating one's billing address at an online store, when
telling the server to transfer funds or whenever this tells the server
to do something besides fetching info.
The difference lies in how the browsers treat expired data. A browser
will happily do the same GET multiple times if the user requests an
expired page. If a page fetched with the POST method expires, the
browser will(/should) ask the user if he wants to resubmit the info
which would result in the transaction being repeated.
e.g. If the script transfers funds, you don't want to browser to
accidently ask for the funds to be transfered twice, so you would
use the POST method.
e.g. If the script shows which movies are playing in the specified
town, the GET method should be used because it's not a problem if
the browser needs to refresh itself by asking the server for the
info a second time.
In doubt, use POST. Some people also use POST because it doesn't
clutter the requested URL, but that is not the intended reason to
use POST.
> Also, could the problems I'm seeing when I test the script be a
> caching issue?
Yes, it could be (as far as I can tell from your description).
Try telling the browser not the cache the cancel page.
ELB
--
Eric L. Brine | Chicken: The egg's way of making more eggs.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | Do you always hit the nail on the thumb?
ICQ# 4629314 | An optimist thinks thorn bushes have roses.
