POSTDATA warning should say why the page wasn't cached

NEW
Unassigned

Status

()

Core
Networking
P5
normal
9 years ago
5 months ago

People

(Reporter: Jesse Ruderman, Unassigned)

Tracking

(Depends on: 1 bug)

Trunk
Points:
---

Firefox Tracking Flags

(Not tracked)

Details

(Whiteboard: [necko-would-take])

(Reporter)

Description

9 years ago
It would be nice if the POSTDATA warning explained why the page in question isn't cached (e.g. no-store header sent by the site, or cache eviction).  This might redirect some ire away from Firefox or help us figure out why POSTDATA warnings are appearing more frequently than they should.  (See comments in bug 160144 for ire.)
OS: Mac OS X → All
Hardware: x86 → All

Comment 1

8 years ago
The POSTDATA dialog isn't the place for this - it appears when any POST result is reloaded, weather cached or not.  The place for this is when navigating the session history to a POST result that isn't cached.  There could be a separate dialog for that case, or an infopage as in bug 569142.
(Reporter)

Updated

7 years ago
Depends on: 160144
Similarly, since the warning in unavoidable, it would be interesting to have a link (?) in this "technical info" section that explains how web developers can avoid triggering it, why it's bad for users, etc.

Comment 3

7 years ago
(in reply to comment #2)
> since the warning in unavoidable

it's _not_ unavoidable. For a way how to avoid it (in most cases), see (and vote for) bug 567365

> how web developers can avoid triggering it

On our mailman site (which happens to be server via a https URL), we have:

 <Directory /usr/lib/cgi-bin/mailman/>
    Header always edit Cache-control no-cache "private, max-age=0"
 </Directory>

(see bug 160144 comment #232 for a full explanation of why this helps)

Maybe this info could be included into the proposed "technical info" section?

That being said, it's sad that webmasters have to resort to such hacks. It'd be better if Firefox finally fixed bug 567365 .

So maybe, we could also have a "political info" section, which would list the names of the banks who leaned so **** Firefox to create this bad behavior in the first place (see bug 112564 and bug 101832)? This might redirect some users' ire to the place where it belongs, and hopefully trigger a couple of apologetic letters from said banks, allowing us to finally move forward and fix bug 567365
Whiteboard: [necko-would-take]
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.