LWP::Simple
Does anybody know if LWP::Simple allow for un@pw:url convention? --james. PGP signature
Re: LWP::Simple
On Fri, Mar 16, 2001 at 01:38:41PM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Does anybody know if LWP::Simple allow for un@pw:url convention? oops un:pw@url -- James A. Duncan W: www.fotango.com P: +44 207 251 7021 F: +44 207 608 3592 PGP signature
Re: LWP::Simple
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Does anybody know if LWP::Simple allow for un@pw:url convention? For FTP URLs? Or HTTP URLs? Or what? For FTP URLs: don't know. For HTTP URLs: no such thing. (NB: just because MSIE or insert browser of choice parses such URLs doesn't mean they exist in any standard. "www.perl.com" isn't an URL, either, for that matter.) Cheers, Philip -- Philip Newton [EMAIL PROTECTED] All opinions are my own, not my employer's. If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
Re: LWP::Simple
On Fri, Mar 16, 2001 at 01:38:41PM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Does anybody know if LWP::Simple allow for un@pw:url convention? Yes it does. Wouldn't it have been quicker to try it than to write that message? ;-) .robin. -- Flee to me, remote elf!
Re: LWP::Simple
On Fri, 16 Mar 2001, Robin Houston wrote: On Fri, Mar 16, 2001 at 02:44:30PM +0100, Philip Newton wrote: For FTP URLs: don't know. For HTTP URLs: no such thing. Technically you're right. LWP does support it though. And so does every other user agent in the universe, pretty much; so you'd have to be a pretty severe standards pedant to say there was no such thing ;-) Lynx doesn't. MBM -- Matthew Byng-Maddick Home: [EMAIL PROTECTED] +44 20 8980 5714 (Home) http://colondot.net/ Work: [EMAIL PROTECTED] +44 7956 613942 (Mobile) Amoebit: Amoeba/rabbit cross; it can multiply and divide at the same time.
Re: LWP::Simple
On Fri, Mar 16, 2001 at 01:50:31PM +, Robin Houston wrote: On Fri, Mar 16, 2001 at 01:38:41PM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Does anybody know if LWP::Simple allow for un@pw:url convention? Yes it does. Wouldn't it have been quicker to try it than to write that message? ;-) Well, yes, normally. I was already reasonably sure that LWP::Simple did support that notation, but I was seeing 401's in return, which was making wonder if it wasn't supported. Convoluted Explanation? Yes. Frustrating? Definitly. Now I have to go away and figure out where it is having a problem. I know that the UN/PW combination is correct, but alas no joy. Ah well. --james. PGP signature
Re: LWP::Simple
Robin Houston wrote: And so does every other user agent in the universe, pretty much; so you'd have to be a pretty severe standards pedant to say there was no such thing ;-) Well, isn't being precise part of being a programmer? "Pedantic" is basically just "precise", only a little more extreme. But "you can't just make sh*t up and expect the computer to understand what you want, Retardo!"[1] -- standards *do* serve a purpose and referring to them can be helpful. Cheers, Philip [1] rough quotation, from memory, of MJD -- Philip Newton [EMAIL PROTECTED] All opinions are my own, not my employer's. If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
Re: LWP::Simple
On Fri, Mar 16, 2001 at 02:59:13PM +0100, Philip Newton wrote: Well, isn't being precise part of being a programmer? "Pedantic" is basically just "precise", only a little more extreme. But "you can't just make sh*t up and expect the computer to understand what you want, Retardo!"[1] -- standards *do* serve a purpose and referring to them can be helpful. Yeah, I suppose so. And I'm certainly capable of being pedantic myself, as I'm sure others here can attest :-) Standards evolve though, and they evolve based on the way that they're used in the real world. They're not infallible scriptures. When we're talking about an *extension* to the standard which is - compatible with the basic standard - very very widely implemented - simple and obvious we should be trying to get the "standard" improved IMO, rather than saying "Don't use it, it's not standard". This is how we make progress. .robin. -- Beware. The paranoids are watching you.
Re: LWP::Simple
On Fri, 16 Mar 2001, Philip Newton wrote: Matthew Byng-Maddick wrote: On Fri, 16 Mar 2001, Robin Houston wrote: And so does every other user agent in the universe, pretty much; so you'd have to be a pretty severe standards pedant to say there was no such thing ;-) Lynx doesn't. IIRC, it does, sort of -- it uses username:password as basic authentication but doesn't strip them off when sending the "Host:" header, which confuses some web servers. In other words, it supports them in a different way to everything else. :) Standards are great when there are so many to choose from. Personally, I'd say that's "not supporting them". But hey... :) MBM -- Matthew Byng-Maddick Home: [EMAIL PROTECTED] +44 20 8980 5714 (Home) http://colondot.net/ Work: [EMAIL PROTECTED] +44 7956 613942 (Mobile) Amoebit: Amoeba/rabbit cross; it can multiply and divide at the same time.
