And it came to pass that psmith wrote:
> Christopher Jahn wrote:
>
>>And it came to pass that psmith wrote:
>>
>>(long rambling and partly incoherent tireade snipped)
>>
>>I'm not sure what you're on about: Mozilla's present Cookie
>>management is leaps and bounds beyond Communicator's.
>>
>>If you're complaining that your old Cookie managers don't
>>work with Mozilla, that's not Mozilla's fault. Eventually
>>these third party programs will catch up.
>>
> Mozilla's cookie management is superior to
> Communicator's but that's
> also completely irrelevant. What Mozilla has incorporated
> to handle cookies is way behind what 3rd party programs are
> capable of doing, and these programs have been the same now
> for at least 3 years and have been performing what one
> needs for cookies.
And how are these programs at browsing the web? Or rendering
pages? Or handling mail and or news?
These programs do ONE THING. Of course they do that ONE THING
very well.
It is unreasonable to expect any suite of applications do any
one of them as well as a single program dedicated to a single
application.
> If a browser is going to handle
> cookies, it should do so in a fully useful way.
Nitpick. "Useful" is subjective: I find the Cookie Manager
useful and practical.
But by all means, feel free to write your own and submit it. Or
hack it into the code for your own use.
> So I
> suppose the real problem must be that the ignorant Mozilla
> programmers don't know how to incorporate these features.
Uh huh. And which part of the code have YOU been writing?
> As it is, I expect it's going to be difficult getting
> around Mozilla's new way of presenting cookies.
Based on?
> Now as for your tone, you should give over, and go back
> to pulling.
Gee, is that what you kids use in place of wit these days?
How sad for you.
--
}:-) Christopher Jahn
{:-( Dionysian Reveler
Tact is the art of saying nothing when you have nothing to say
Fiona Apple
To reply: xjahnATyahooDOTcom
