Hi! psmith wrote: > > Christian Mattar wrote: > > >Hi! > > > >psmith wrote: > > > >(psmith's ranbling snipped) > > > >I just checked, Mozilla's and Communicator cookie-files look exactly the > >same, the< use the same spec from > ><http://www.netscape.com/newsref/std/cookie_spec.html>. I suggest you > >inform yourself properly next time before throwing around any invalid > >claims. Oh, and BTW: Cookies were *invented* by Netscape. It never was > >an open standardizing process, so Mozilla's cookie handling (or IE's for > >that matter, which AFAIK uses the same format) is no more or less > >proprietary thans Communicator's. > > > >Christian > > > Yes, the cookie files look the same. The problem is how the cookie > is handled in real-time as it is passed through the browser. Maybe all > the programmers on this group who don't think this is an issue of any > concern to Mozilla programmers need to vote to get rid of all that fancy > cookie handling stuff written into Mozilla before you all attempt to > make it even more elaborate than you did.
I've downloaded Cookie Pal to see how it works. It basically awaits the Windows message box which pops up when a cookie is received, intercepts it, and automatically sends either 'Accept Cookie' or 'Reject Cookie'. This won't work with XUL, since I don't think external apps can easily detect XUL-popups, since they are rendered by Mozilla itself, not the Windows GUI subsystem. This in indeed a problem, although it doesn't have anything directly to do with Mozilla's cookie processing, but the way the GUI is drawn. I don't think that there's an easy solution to this problem, since XUL isn't going to go away anytime soon. I guess in an embedded version of Mozilla like Kmeleon(although I don't know whether it has *any* cookie handling capatbilites, i.e. opens a message box when a cookie arrives), Cookie Pal could easily be adapted to work with it. Christian
