What the web browser SHOULD DO and what the web browser ACTUALLY DOES is two complete different things.

???

What I mean is that there has been a lot of frustration among web developers that different web browsers doesn't behave as they should. And Internet Explorer is a great sinner in this case.

Unless the web server is very busy, there is not much need for cache. For the web sites I'm responsible for, web cache is not needed at all.

I strongly disagree [edit]with this generalised form[/edit]. There is not only the more or less busy server, there is on the visitors side also the device(s) with internet connections with restrictions in speed or in the available monthly data volume. It's i.e. simply unnecessary to serve the background images and the images of the icons on every request. The HTML with the perhaps changed content on the other hand should be actualised (at least) within a short time without loosing the information about the state of the pages.

I live in a country there most people has an Internet connection of 100 Mbit/s and there an Internet connection of 10 Mbit/s is considered as slow. And there the problem with monthly data volume is that people are watching movies on their cell phones.

But I do understand what you are saying and that people in other countries than Sweden has a lot slower Internet connections.

However, the amount of data of a page from web forum like My Little Forum is very small in comparison to most other web pages, like news papers and Facebook. So for most visitors I still belive that it's not necessary to cache the pages from My Little Forum in the web browser.

And I got the solution to the problem from phpBB3, maybe the biggest software for web forums.

best regards,
Daniel