RE: RFC: WWW::Mechanize::Compress or LWP patch?

2003-12-03 Thread Brian Cassidy
Gisle, The more I'm thinking about it, it's not appropriate for LWP. As far as I can think of, this would be the first and only instance of LWP modifying content that it receives before passing it back to the caller. I'm not sure that's a direction we should go. I agree. There are

Re: RFC: WWW::Mechanize::Compress or LWP patch?

2003-12-03 Thread Gisle Aas
---BeginMessage--- Brian Cassidy [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Also, there needs to be something selectable for the users who happen to have Compress::Zlib but don't want to get compressed data for whatever reason. It would certainly not happen by default. If you download a .tar.gz

RE: RFC: WWW::Mechanize::Compress or LWP patch?

2003-12-03 Thread Brian Cassidy
Gisle, Doh. Way to ruin my day! :) So, are there any proposed work-arounds, or is this completely useless now? -Brian -Original Message- No. A server does the right thing if it marks a gziped file tar file with Content-Encoding: gzip. Some examples: http://www.gordano.com -

Re: RFC: WWW::Mechanize::Compress or LWP patch?

2003-12-03 Thread Gisle Aas
David Carter [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: My understanding had always been that content-encoding (when talking about compression) is in practical terms no different than transfer-encoding. LWP already handles transfer-encoding (gzip or deflate), so what's the big deal about it also handling

Re: RFC: WWW::Mechanize::Compress or LWP patch?

2003-12-03 Thread Gisle Aas
Brian Cassidy [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: So, are there any proposed work-arounds, or is this completely useless now? The decompresser just needs to be smarter about when to kick in. For a GUI browser it would kick in if you decide to display the document. This can be determined after looking at

3XX - redirect

2003-12-03 Thread Brian Cassidy
Since I have your attention... :) Playing around with some test response codes, I've found that (at least) 300 (multiple choices) and 320 (bogus) do not redirect, even though they fall under is_redirect(). Traces: -- LWP::UserAgent::new: () LWP::UserAgent::request: ()

Re: 3XX - redirect

2003-12-03 Thread Gisle Aas
Brian Cassidy [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Playing around with some test response codes, I've found that (at least) 300 (multiple choices) and 320 (bogus) do not redirect, even though they fall under is_redirect(). What do you think it should do exactly? I don't really feel like doing anything

RE: 3XX - redirect

2003-12-03 Thread Brian Cassidy
-Original Message- What do you think it should do exactly? I would say... redirect! At least, since the RFC (2616, see section 6.1.1, last paragraph) says that all unknown status codes are to be handled by the base code (ie 320 = 300), then those unknown 3XX codes should redirect. Code

Re: 3XX - redirect

2003-12-03 Thread Gisle Aas
Brian Cassidy [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: -Original Message- What do you think it should do exactly? I would say... redirect! At least, since the RFC (2616, see section 6.1.1, last paragraph) says that all unknown status codes are to be handled by the base code (ie 320 = 300),

RE: 3XX - redirect

2003-12-03 Thread Brian Cassidy
-Original Message- And how to handle 300 responses is not really well defined in RFC 2616 either. It says that the entity will contain a list of resources that the user agent can choose between. It then goes on to say that there might also be a Location field containing the

HTML::Form warnings

2003-12-03 Thread Ovid
Hi all, I sometimes gets $tag outside form warnings when using HTML::Form (via WWW::Mechanize). The code in HTML::Form that issues this warning is: Carp::carp($tag outside form) if $^W; The problem is, if I suppress this warning, I have to suppress all warnings and I'd rather not do that.

Re: RFC: WWW::Mechanize::Compress or LWP patch?

2003-12-03 Thread david
From the redirects thread also on this list, I find the browser test suite site Brian mentioned to be relevant to this dicusssion. Shouldn't LWP be able to handle this URL automagically? (Whether by default or not is, as always, open to discussion.)

Re: RFC: WWW::Mechanize::Compress or LWP patch?

2003-12-03 Thread Gisle Aas
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Shouldn't LWP be able to handle this URL automagically? Yes, if we can find an API everybody is happy with. http://diveintomark.org/tests/client/http/200_gzip.xml IE just does it. So does Mozilla. Konqueror suggest saving or opening the file in an external app,

Re: RFC: WWW::Mechanize::Compress or LWP patch?

2003-12-03 Thread John J Lee
On Wed, 3 Dec 2003, Gisle Aas wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [...] http://diveintomark.org/tests/client/http/200_gzip.xml IE just does it. [...] Konqueror suggest saving or opening the file in an external app, but the file saved or given to an external app is still gzipped. Not in

Re: RFC: WWW::Mechanize::Compress or LWP patch?

2003-12-03 Thread John J Lee
On Wed, 3 Dec 2003, John J Lee wrote: [...] Not in KDE 3.2: it decompresses automatically, so when you save or open with KWrite, it's just 200_gzip.xml. ...and I'd take a guess that's because Safari (Apple's browser based on Konqueror) does the same, because 3.2 apparently includes a lot of