META or HEADER ?

[StinkFinger]

All,
Which is better and why ?

header("Location: http://www.example.com/");
or
echo "<META HTTP-EQUIV=\"refresh\" content=\"0; url=/index.php\">";

[Oliver Grätz]

StinkFinger schrieb:

All,
Which is better and why ?

header("Location: http://www.example.com/");
or
echo "<META HTTP-EQUIV=\"refresh\" content=\"0; url=/index.php\">";

Header!
The Location-Header can be handled on the HTTP-level, whereas for
the META-Tag the browser has to load and parse the HTML-part.
It's slower and not that error-resistent.

AllOlli

[StinkFinger]

Thank you.

"Oliver Grätz" <ol***********@gmx.de> wrote in message
news:40***********************@newsread2.arcor-online.net...

StinkFinger schrieb:

All,
Which is better and why ?

header("Location: http://www.example.com/");
or
echo "<META HTTP-EQUIV=\"refresh\" content=\"0; url=/index.php\">";

Header!
The Location-Header can be handled on the HTTP-level, whereas for
the META-Tag the browser has to load and parse the HTML-part.
It's slower and not that error-resistent.

AllOlli

[Adriaan]

"Oliver Grätz" wrote

The Location-Header can be handled on the HTTP-level, whereas for
the META-Tag the browser has to load and parse the HTML-part.
It's slower and not that error-resistent.

And has a different (for most needs: better) behavior for the browser's Back
button: the old (requested) location is not stored in the history.

Adriaan