Re: cookie handling patch

2004-04-02 Thread John J Lee
On Thu, 1 Apr 2004, JUANMARCOSMOREN wrote:
[...]
  Aleksandr Guidrevitch wrote:
  We've found that LWP incorrectly handles cookies
  containing ';' in the cookie value.
  The patch (test case and fix) is attached
[...]
 So, why do you want ';' in cookies if they are not handled
 correctly by the most used HTTP implementations (MSIE and Mozilla)?

Right.


  According RFC in **quoted** string you can put almost anything.
  See http://www.cse.ohio-state.edu/cgi-bin/rfc/rfc2109.html for
  definition of cookie:

 People don't care much about the HTTP RFC what people really want is to
 be compatible with MSIE and Mozilla.
[...]

The algorithm in browsers has apparently always been pretty much 'split on
';'', so right again.


John


Re: cookie handling patch

2004-04-01 Thread JUANMARCOSMOREN
Aleksandr Guidrevitch wrote:
 We've found that LWP incorrectly handles cookies
 containing ';' in the cookie value.
 The patch (test case and fix) is attached

Could you point me to a web page that is already sending these kind of cookies?
Does it work under MSIE/Mozilla?

Juan




Re: cookie handling patch

2004-04-01 Thread Aleksandr Guidrevitch
Hi Juan,

JUANMARCOSMOREN wrote:

Aleksandr Guidrevitch wrote:
 

We've found that LWP incorrectly handles cookies
containing ';' in the cookie value.
The patch (test case and fix) is attached
   

Could you point me to a web page that is already sending these kind of cookies?
Does it work under MSIE/Mozilla?
 

Nope, it is our internal project, not available to outer world.
Both we know that neither mozilla nor msie correctly handle such cookies :((
According RFC in **quoted** string you can put almost anything.
See http://www.cse.ohio-state.edu/cgi-bin/rfc/rfc2109.html for 
defenition of cookie:

  av-pairs=   av-pair *(; av-pair)
  av-pair =   attr [= value]; optional value
  attr=   token
  value   =   word
  word=   token | quoted-string
See http://www.cse.ohio-state.edu/cgi-bin/rfc/rfc2068.html for 
defenition of quoted-string:

A string of text is parsed as a single word if it is quoted using double-quote marks.
 quoted-string  = (  *(qdtext)  )
 qdtext = any TEXT except 
   The backslash character (\) may be used as a single-character quoting mechanism 
only within quoted-string and comment constructs.
 quoted-pair= \ CHAR
So, since the patch doesn't break original libwww behaviour (according 
to the test suite)
and provides more proper implementation of rfc, it looked to me as a 
good candidate
for inclusion into libwww.

Sincerely,
Aleksandr Guidrevitch


Re: cookie handling patch

2004-04-01 Thread JUANMARCOSMOREN
Aleksandr Guidrevitch wrote:
 JUANMARCOSMOREN wrote:
 Aleksandr Guidrevitch wrote:
 We've found that LWP incorrectly handles cookies
 containing ';' in the cookie value.
 The patch (test case and fix) is attached
 
 Could you point me to a web page that is already sending these kind of 
 cookies?
 Does it work under MSIE/Mozilla?
 
 Nope, it is our internal project, not available to outer world.
 Both we know that neither mozilla nor msie correctly handle such cookies :((

So, why do you want ';' in cookies if they are not handled
correctly by the most used HTTP implementations (MSIE and Mozilla)?

 According RFC in **quoted** string you can put almost anything.
 See http://www.cse.ohio-state.edu/cgi-bin/rfc/rfc2109.html for 
 definition of cookie:

People don't care much about the HTTP RFC what people really want is to
be compatible with MSIE and Mozilla.

   av-pairs=   av-pair *(; av-pair)
   av-pair =   attr [= value]; optional value
   attr=   token
   value   =   word
   word=   token | quoted-string
 
 
 See http://www.cse.ohio-state.edu/cgi-bin/rfc/rfc2068.html for 
 definition of quoted-string:
 
 A string of text is parsed as a single word if it is quoted using 
 double-quote marks.
  quoted-string  = (  *(qdtext)  )
  qdtext = any TEXT except 
The backslash character (\) may be used as a single-character quoting 
mechanism only within quoted-string and comment constructs.
  quoted-pair= \ CHAR
 
 So, since the patch doesn't break original libwww behavior (according 
 to the test suite)
 and provides more proper implementation of rfc, it looked to me as a 
 good candidate
 for inclusion into libwww.

I think this patch solves nothing and add useless code to the library.

It is not a good idea to apply this patch.

Juan