Quoth Peter Hartman:
> The other reason (besides hatred of libsoup) that surf never bothered
> implementing anything other than what it currently has is that (to my
> knowledge) there has yet to be a bona fide web-site that the current
> system fails on. There's a lot of FUD, but none (to my knowledge)
> that is bona fide.
Indeed. I remember chatting about possible fail states of the
current cookie mechanism, but it all got a bit boring and so I
forgot the outcome. I think basically it boiled down to our system
could fail potentially if sites using multiple windows expected to
interact in particularly stupid ways using cookies.
But even if our system works my vote would be to go the libsoup way.
We shouldn't pretend that surf is anything but a shim atop a
monster, and using their cookie management means it's less likely to
fail in unexpected ways in the future.
> and if Nick approves the patch, I don't see there being
> anyone out there who would dis-approve it.
The power that comes of being vocal in a userbase of < 5 ;)
- application/pgp-signature attachment: stored
Received on Tue Feb 21 2012 - 21:13:45 CET