Subject:
|
Re: Opera Software browser (was: Re: MSIE5 security hole)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.publish
|
Date:
|
Sun, 12 Sep 1999 02:38:12 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
773 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.publish, Todd Lehman writes:
> > > Hey! I see a cookies.dat file in my user directory too. That's very
> > > interesting. Hmm. Darn thing's binary (boo! hiss!) but anyway, as far
> > > as I can tell, the cookies feature in Opera 3.60 is forgen borken. If
> > > you know how to make 'em work, I'd love to know (so I can tell users how
> > > if they ever ask). I've got "Enable Cookies" checked in the Advanced
> > > Preferences dialog box, and yet it won't remember cookies on two
> > > different pages that Navigator and Exploiter do just fine.
> >
> > What sites are these? I'll try them with mine.
>
> I can't give out the URLs because they're private LUGNET-admin pages, but
> one that you could test which uses the same cookie-storage code is this:
>
> http://www.lugnet.com/news/post/setup/
>
> My guess is: If a website named www.foo.com sends a cookie labled .foo.com,
> that Opera mistakenly thinks it's a mismatch (it's not) and doesn't send the
> cookie back to the server. (Again, this is just a guess.)
Could you modify your cookies so that it used www.lugnet.com instead of
.lugnet.com? So that at least _one_ site is compatible with Opera ;^)
I'm getting pretty sick of typing my name/address in the web interface.
> > > But it doesn't do <DL></DL>. :-(
> > Mine does it just fine. How were these tags used?
>
> http://www.lugnet.com/sitemap.cgi
This looks okay in Opera...
> > [...]
> > Maybe you (or whomever the author was) didn't close a tag.
>
> That was my first thought, so I ran the code through Imagiware's "Doctor
> HTML" weblinter <http://www2.imagiware.com/RxHTML/> and then through W3's
> validator <http://validator.w3.org/> and both parsed the <DL> lists
> correctly. So I figured it must've just been some weird bug in Opera.
>
> But now that you mention it, the <DT> tags aren't being closed explicitly.
>
> Of course, <DT> tags (and many others such as <DD>, <TD>, <LI>, etc.) don't
> need to be closed explicitly, so Opera has a bug in its HTML parser if it
> requires that. It's possible that Opera is also confused by the existence
> of <DT> without an accompanying <DD>, but it's more likely that the parser
> is just broken a bit.
It seems to do unclosed <P> tags okay. But, like you said, it could just be a
discrepancy in the parser.
Amos Bieler
Note: Unorthodox spam block in place.
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
28 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
