-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 Hrvoje Niksic wrote: > Generally, if Wget considers a header to be in error (and hence > ignores it), the user probably needs to know about that. After all, > it could be the symptom of a Wget bug, or of an unimplemented > extension the server generates. In both cases I as a user would want > to know. Of course, Wget should continue to be lenient towards syntax > violations widely recognized by popular browsers. > > Note that I'm not arguing that Wget should warn in this particular > case. It is perfectly fine to not consider an empty `Set-Cookie' to > be a syntax error and to simply ignore it (and maybe only print a > warning in debug mode).
That was my thought. I agree with both of your points above: if Wget's not handling something properly, I want to know about it; but at the same time, silently ignoring (erroneous) empty headers doesn't seem like a problem. - -- Micah J. Cowan Programmer, musician, typesetting enthusiast, gamer... http://micah.cowan.name/ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFHRGqx7M8hyUobTrERCPwQAJ4wGFwPBqyoVDXjrOifNB/fVF1vtACbBnDU fnSx/Vj+S+DVnfRUbIz5HKU= =n4yr -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
