On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 18:04:18 -0500, Victor Kryukov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I understand why you may want to be less strict about following the > standard and allow some deviations from it, but current DRAKMA > behaviour is broken for the sites that _do follow the standard_, > which I think is not acceptable, as least not as a default > behaviour. Agreed. > I'd be happy to provide a patch once I better understand what are > the "compatibility" requirements. Could you please point me in the > right direction? I wanted to provide some examples this morning already, but unfortunately, I can't come up with any right now. I /do/ know that at one time I tested a lot of "real-life" cookies with Drakma, though, and quite a few weren't RFC-compliant. > Do you mean old-style Netscape cookies[1]? Allowing old-style Netscape cookies - at least optionally - would be a good idea, yes. > Also, there are mutliple strategies to fix that. One is to follow > RFC2109 by default, but allow for Netscape-style cookies after > setting a certain parameter (I'd prefer this one). Another is to try > to follow RFC 2109, but then rollback to Netscape-style cookies if > parsing error occurs. There are probably other possible approaches. > Which one would you prefer? The ideal solution, I think, would be a combination of the first two strategies you mentioned. Follow RFC2109 by default, but provide one or more sensible restarts in case a parsing error occurs. Additionally, have some parameter (probably a global special variable) which if set automatically invokes the "use old Netscape-style" restart. Does that sound reasonable? _______________________________________________ drakma-devel mailing list drakma-devel@common-lisp.net http://common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/drakma-devel
