Sven Köhler wrote:
The difficulty here is that although '=' is the delimiter between NAME and
VALUE there is no need to encode it if it appears in the name or the value.
This causes some ambiguities when parsing a header of the form:
Set-Cookie: foo=bar=bartoo
Is the name 'foo' or 'foo=bar'? Is the value 'bar=bartoo' or 'bartoo'?
The changes to the cookie parsing mean the second '=' and any text beyond
it are now ignored.
!???
By instinct, i would have chosen the first = to split the string into
NAME and VALUE.
Why have you chosen the second = or maybe eben the last = occuring in
the cookie-string?
Actually, the spec doesn't disagree with chosing any of the = ...
But some users have supplied some reasonable arguments (base64 is
padding with =, etc.) to rather chose the first = over the other ones.
in that case, the user should use v1 cookies :)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
