--- Kevin Stone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The Refresh directive is a valid header. I've used it for many
> years and it seems to be supported by the majority of browsers.
My experience has been the same.
> However I've never read anything that would indicate that Refresh
> works any differently than Location.
Well, it does, though the difference may not be so obvious. The Location header
accompanies a response with a status code of 3xx, which tells the Web client
that the resource has moved. This matters when it comes to things like Google
indexing your site. Google will fetch the new resource and consider it the same
as the original resource as long as the status code was 3xx.
It is also more transparent; a 3xx response does not exist in the client's
history mechanism (well, it's not supposed to), so a user who clicks back won't
be sent forward immediately (making the back button appear broken or disabled).
I'm not sure if Refresh is interpreted as being transparent in the history as
well, but in my current browser (Galeon), it is definitely not.
Oh, and the original problem was likely due to a relative URL being used in the
Location header. This is a violation of the protocol and can cause problems
with certain clients.
Hope that helps.
Chris
=====
My Blog
http://shiflett.org/
HTTP Developer's Handbook
http://httphandbook.org/
RAMP Training Courses
http://www.nyphp.org/ramp
--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
