On Wed, May 08, 2002 at 12:43:52AM +0200, Oliver Bleutgen wrote: | kosh@aesaeion.com wrote: | | >On Tue, 7 May 2002, dman wrote: | > | >>On Tue, May 07, 2002 at 12:41:56PM -0400, Gregory Dudek wrote: | >>I strongly oppose modifying a properly functionng, RFC-conforming | >>product to coddle a non-informative and non-RFC-conforming product. | >>Fix the broken product, not the working one. | > | >I have to concur completely. If we get in the habit of "fixing" zope all | >the time to work around IE bugs it will only make it that much harder to | >make compliant solutions and that much harder to get rid of MS. Fighting a | >monopoly takes work and I have found it to be worthwhile. | Well, the problem isn't the non-standards compliance of IE. Don't get me | started about that. Ok. | The question is whether sending and "Internal Server Error" status 500 | header is the right thing to do, when doing cookie based authentication. | While I didn't read up in the http RFC, I doubt that error code 500 is | correct. Ahh, this is totally different than the first impression I got from your message. If zope isn't following the standards right, then by all means fix it :-). Originally I was under the impression of "IE is broken, we should modify zope to help it along". I don't know enough about HTTP to comment further on this. -D -- If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me and for the gospel will save it. What good is it for a man to gain the whole world, yet forfeit his soul? Or what can a man give in exchange for his soul? Mark 8:34-37 GnuPG key : http://dman.ddts.net/~dman/public_key.gpg