25 minutes ago, Robby Findler wrote: > On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 1:06 PM, Eli Barzilay <[email protected]> wrote: > > Yesterday, Robby Findler wrote: > >> Also, when I disable cookies, I see that the context sensitive > >> search just silently doesn't work. > >> > >> Would it be possible to always have the search set a (separate) > >> cookie and give a warning if it doesn't find the (constant) > >> cookie? > > > > I think that it's far more likely that JS fails, so you won't see > > any warning anyway. > > JS could also hide a warning that JS wasn't available, right?
Well, if there's no JS, then JS can't warn you about it. There's the `noscript' tag, which is there for pages that use it, I think. > > As for a warning when chrome prevents storing a cookie, I remember > > trying that and IIRC it can't even tell when you're not allowed to > > store a cookie. > > Yeah, I can see how they'd set things up like that. I found those emails, from around March 2010 -- here's a relevant part from what I wrote at the time: > Looks like > * cookies from file:// urls never worked on chrome, > * there's a command line flag that is supposed to make it work, > * it is not working (or no longer working), > * it is now throwing an error instead of silently ignoring them which > was the previous behavior. > > Two relevant pages: > http://www.google.com/support/forum/p/Chrome/thread?tid=3D23fd2349855c0f17&hl=3Den > http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=3D535 -- ((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x))) Eli Barzilay: http://barzilay.org/ Maze is Life! _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev
