Re: lynx-dev Cookies and command line operation

[Klaus Weide]

On Fri, 22 Oct 1999 address@hidden wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Oct 1999, Klaus Weide wrote:
> 
> >It's just not done, and I don't think people *want* or *expect* lynx
> >to do this.  If you want persistent cookies, fine, turn them on,
> 
> Yes they do, we see questions here all the time about people trying to get
> cookies to work.

We do *not* see a lot of questions here about people having difficulty
turning cookies on, or turning persistent cookies on.  Problems with
specific Web sites yes, people wanting cookies stored with -source yes,
but neither of those support your point.

> If it worked "out of the box" (had to do more work to turn them off), 
> it would actually be more useful to people.

Some people find it useful to work with programs that don't do unexpected
things behind their back.

> Seems to me, by your logic, that Lynx should only accept HTML 1.0 by default,
> and anything above that should have to be turned on.

I wrote (which you snipped):
>> Decide point-by-point, feature by feature which behavior makes the most
>> sense.

It takes some intentional misreading to characterize that as "Lynx should
only accept HTML 1.0 by default".

Most HTML 2.0/3.0/3.2/4.0 features can be implemented without needing
to do things that make people feel paranoid. (reasonably or not)

> People are unreasonably paranoid about cookies.

Ah, so you admit that a lot of people are concerned about cookies.
You want to make it easier for those who share your unconcern, and
harder for those "unreasonable" people who prefer to be a bit paranoid.

   Klaus