[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: lynx-dev Cookies and command line operation
From: |
Leonid Pauzner |
Subject: |
Re: lynx-dev Cookies and command line operation |
Date: |
Sat, 30 Oct 1999 14:11:24 +0400 (MSD) |
29-Oct-99 20:48 Klaus Weide wrote:
> So here's a somewhat different idea: A 'save_cookies' flag that
> tells lynx whther to *write* cookies to file or not.
> In interactive mode, default is
> - ON if persistent cookies are enabled
> - OFF if persistent cookies are disabled
> In noninteractive mode, default is
> - OFF
I think this is a very useful approach: always *read* cookies_file
(when cookies are ON), but write to cookies_file conditionally;
this is much better than current "PERSISTENT_COOKIES:TRUE/FALSE"
behaviour. One could be a command line toggle
and probably lynx.cfg option (instead of PERSISTENT_COOKIES:
in this particular case I feel it is not bad to break backward compatibility
with naming convention - persistent cookies were experimental anyway.
And EXP_PERSISTENT_COOKIES could now be renamed to PERSISTENT_COOKIES symbol:)
> This would allow to *use* the cookies in a cookie file as-is, without
> messing with it, i.e. a "read-only cookie jar" for interactive use.
> Say you have accumulated cookies form some sites you trust, they don't
> get frequently changed, and you want to hang on to that state of the
> jar. Cookie files could be shared between several sessions without
> risk of overwriting each other's state. (could even be shared between
> several users or system-wide if you feel like it...)
> I think now we should only distinguish (for purposes of this flag)
> between interactive and noninteractive, i.e. treat -dump and -source
> (even -mime_header) the same, as well as -dump implied by -get_data
> and -post_data. I think now that the difference between -source and
> -dump that I brought up earlier isn't really worth bothering, it is
> theoretical only: I have never seen "Set-Cookie" used in an HTTP-EQUIV
> META tag in real pages.
> I am not sure whether this should be command line flag, lynx.cfg option,
> or both, but probably both.
> What do you think? (And what do the consumers-of-cookies think?)
- lynx-dev Cookies and command line operation, Patrick Payne, 1999/10/20
- Re: lynx-dev Cookies and command line operation, Kim DeVaughn, 1999/10/20
- Re: lynx-dev Cookies and command line operation, brian j pardy, 1999/10/20
- Re: lynx-dev Cookies and command line operation, Klaus Weide, 1999/10/20
- Re: lynx-dev Cookies and command line operation, brian j pardy, 1999/10/20
- Re: lynx-dev Cookies and command line operation, Klaus Weide, 1999/10/20
- Re: lynx-dev Cookies and command line operation, brian j pardy, 1999/10/20
- Re: lynx-dev Cookies and command line operation, Klaus Weide, 1999/10/29
- Re: lynx-dev Cookies and command line operation,
Leonid Pauzner <=
- Re: lynx-dev Cookies and command line operation, Klaus Weide, 1999/10/30
- Re: lynx-dev Cookies and command line operation, Vlad Harchev, 1999/10/31
- Re: lynx-dev Cookies and command line operation, mattack, 1999/10/30
- Re: lynx-dev Cookies and command line operation, Klaus Weide, 1999/10/31
Re: lynx-dev Cookies and command line operation, Klaus Weide, 1999/10/20
- Re: lynx-dev Cookies and command line operation, mattack, 1999/10/21
- Re: lynx-dev Cookies and command line operation, Klaus Weide, 1999/10/22
- Re: lynx-dev Cookies and command line operation, mattack, 1999/10/22
- Re: lynx-dev Cookies and command line operation, Klaus Weide, 1999/10/22
- Re: lynx-dev Cookies and command line operation, mattack, 1999/10/23