- Dillo-dev - lists.mailman3.com

[Dillo-dev]Rendering bug...

by Jorge Arellano Cid

Hi Sebastian, Do you remember sometime ago when I lost a page that showed an overlayed calendar. Well, I was browsing dock apps an came accross this one: http://www.dockapps.org/file.php/id/99 This time I saved it! :) It reliably reproduces the bug: overlayed text rendering. Please give it a look. The bug shows on 0.8.2 and 0.7.3 so it's old enough that rc3 can perfectly get out with it inside, just in case it is not a trivial fix. -- Cheers Jorge.-

Oct. 21, 2004

[Dillo-dev]Re: which version does this patch file patch

by Vincent

Phil Blundell <pb@...> writes: > > In the Familiar project, we are still using Dillo 0.6.7, because that's the > only version that I could find with working GTK2 patches. I'm very interrested to get this version but I don't find it ? Do you know where can I find a dillo source/gtk2 version to download please ? Thanks. Vincent.

Oct. 21, 2004

[Dillo-dev]Re: about gtk2.diff.gz

by Vincent

Calvin Yu <yuzenghui@...> writes: > > I used this patch file, tried dillo-0.7.3 and dillo-0.8.0. > But when they were patched, both of them occured errors. > Is there another version between 0.7.3 and 0.8.0 that can > be patched with gtk2.diff.gz exactly. > Who can send me that version, i just want to have a test. > i will be very grateful for your help. > My mail box is yuzenghui@... > Or yuzenghui@... > Thank you!! > I have the same problem as you and I'm very interrested to compile those prototype because I only have gtk2 libraries available on my target ... Thanks. Vincent.

Oct. 21, 2004

Re: [Dillo-dev]Bug #364

by Jorge Arellano Cid

On Wed, Oct 20, 2004 at 08:18:20PM +0800, Russell J. Wood wrote: > Hello Dilldoers =b > > Would the said bug be because the Set-Cookie entity sent from advogato.org is > not RFC compliant? > > Here is what I received: > > Set-Cookie: id=<data>; path=/; Expires=Thursday, 20-Oct-2005 11:57:18 GMT > > I'm under the impression the Expires attribute is meant to be as: > > Wdy, DD-MM-YYYY HH:MM:SS GMT > > Therefore, because the Weekday isn't in an abbreviated form it is being > discarded? The patch was just commited to CVS! Please test this site and tell us how it works. Hey!, don't forget to check no other dillo instance is holding a lock on the cookie file (run only one to be sure, or check it says "Enabling cookies as from cookiesrc..."). Kelson, Jörgen: This patch also deals with the four formats and other things: * Removed a CPU-hog on 302 redirections with cookies. * Made 302 redirections non-cacheable (incomplete). * Implemented a new scheme for detecting redirection loops. * Fixed cookies to accept four legacy old-date formats for "Expires". So for the mosquitos page (problem with CPU-hog and rejected cookie), it works for me now. http://mosquito.wordpress.org/view_all_bug_page.php Just set: .wordpress.org ACCEPT in cookiesrc ("mosquito.wordpress.org ACCEPT" may also work). Note that when cookies are not allowed from there, a redirection loop is detected! Urbi et Orbi: please test this CVS with any HTTP redirection pages that you can find (not meta refresh). The plan is to make this 0.8.3-rc3 on Friday and to release by Wednesday. Sebastian: I planning to remove the patch for anchors from rc3, that is, unless you consider it safe enough to include it at this stage. -- Cheers Jorge.-

Oct. 21, 2004

Re: [Dillo-dev]Bug #364

by Jorge Arellano Cid

On Thu, Oct 21, 2004 at 08:24:20AM +0800, Russell J. Wood wrote: > Hello all, > > Nice research. If you like I'll look into it more before a commitment is made, > but from what you've described all four might be the go. > > I'll search some more tonight. Well, now my tree (and soon CVS) is doing the four. If you want to dig the RFCs some more, beware it takes a lot of time, and that even when finally a technical matter is perfectly clear, it must be confronted with "de-facto". Soon I'll require some testing if the patch. Advogato is expected to start working... Stay tuned... -- Cheers Jorge.-

Oct. 21, 2004

Re: [Dillo-dev]Bug #364

by Jorge Arellano Cid

On Thu, Oct 21, 2004 at 01:26:29AM +0200, Jorgen Viksell wrote: > Hi, > > I've been thinking a little bit about it, and have some input on the > matter. > > ons 2004-10-20 klockan 18:58 -0300 skrev Jorge Arellano Cid: > > On Wed, Oct 20, 2004 at 08:18:20PM +0800, Russell J. Wood wrote: > > > Hello Dilldoers =b > > > > > > Would the said bug be because the Set-Cookie entity sent from advogato.org is > > > not RFC compliant? > > > > > > Here is what I received: > > > > > > Set-Cookie: id=<data>; path=/; Expires=Thursday, 20-Oct-2005 11:57:18 GMT > > > > > > I'm under the impression the Expires attribute is meant to be as: > > > > > > Wdy, DD-MM-YYYY HH:MM:SS GMT > > > > > > Therefore, because the Weekday isn't in an abbreviated form it is being > > > discarded? > > > > Could be... > > > > This is my second answer because I made some mistakes... > > > > AFAIK, the most current RFC for cookies is RFC-2965, but it > > doesn't say a word about the Expires format. > > > > The previous spec, RFC-2109 says: > > It should be noted here that this is said in the "historical" section. > And that "Expires" never has been part of an RFC (IIRC). FWIW: RFC-2965 says HTTP1.1 must use "Expires" in some conditions, but it doesn't define its syntax. The format is referred to as "old-date" RFC-2109 says the same and mentions a definition of "Expires" in an historical section. > [snip] > > > So that's it. It seems there are four legacy but legal formats: > > > > Wdy, DD-Mon-YY HH:MM:SS GMT > > Wdy, DD-Mon-YYYY HH:MM:SS GMT > > Weekday, DD-Mon-YY HH:MM:SS GMT > > Weekday, DD-Mon-YYYY HH:MM:SS GMT > > > > with the second one being the most "correct". > > I want to point out here that we don't use the weekday part in any way, > so it can be discarded. And the year part is parsed with strtol() in a > way that it doesn't matter if it's two or four chars long (there is a > check right after it to account for both cases). Not that tolerant, the code _was_ discarding some cookies. I made a patch that accepts the four formats, and added some comments. I'm testing the patch with the one for the CPU-hog Kelson discovered. > > > > BTW, the site that Kelson pointed to as an example that uses > > cookies and locks dillo on a CPU hog, uses: > > > > Wdy, DD-Mon-YY HH:MM:SS GMT > > > > so it's currently ignored. > > > > I'm working on it now, and found this interesting fact while > > testing http://mosquito.wordpress.org/view_all_bug_page.php. Kelson: mosquito's site works on my computer now! :-) Just allow me a couple of hours to test it some more (the new redirection loop code) before commiting to CVS. > > AFAIS, we'll have to accept the four date formats... > > I agree. In a perfect world the "Max-Age" attribute would be used > everywhere. However, "Expires" has become a de-facto standard (and a > badly defined such) which needs alot of "special attention" but it's > also a must to have working cookies. As for the SPEC, "Max-Age" is optional... At least now my tree is parsing the whole set. > > Does anyone know better? > > Not really... :-) Good! :-) Then my patch will be cheerfully welcomed. > > > Does anyone Wanna' try to find out? > > Comments out of simpathetic feelings to a maintainer having a > > hard time through the RFCs? :) > > My advice: don't stare directly at it! ;-) Not again! :-) -- Cheers Jorge.-

Oct. 21, 2004

Re: [Dillo-dev]dillo-0.8.3-rc2 ready for download

by Riccardo Mottola

Hey, Jorge Arellano Cid wrote: > > Feedback is very welcomed. After you say it's OK, it will be > officially announced as dillo-0.8.3. > > Download URL: > > http://www.dillo.org/download/dillo-0.8.3-rc2.tar.bz2 I downloaded and compiled under OpenBSD/sparc, all went fine. I removed the files mentioned, since I couldn't find them I removed all the dpi dir (the structure seemed a bit different). I then run dillo and browsed a few pages and it seems to behave OK. I wasn't able to do further testing for now, but at least it seems to work. -R

Oct. 21, 2004

Re: [Dillo-dev]Bug #364

by Russell J. Wood

Hello all, Nice research. If you like I'll look into it more before a commitment is made, but from what you've described all four might be the go. I'll search some more tonight. Regards, Russell On Wed, Oct 20, 2004 at 06:58:20PM -0300, Jorge Arellano Cid wrote: > On Wed, Oct 20, 2004 at 08:18:20PM +0800, Russell J. Wood wrote: > > Hello Dilldoers =b > > > > Would the said bug be because the Set-Cookie entity sent from advogato.org is > > not RFC compliant? > > > > Here is what I received: > > > > Set-Cookie: id=<data>; path=/; Expires=Thursday, 20-Oct-2005 11:57:18 GMT > > > > I'm under the impression the Expires attribute is meant to be as: > > > > Wdy, DD-MM-YYYY HH:MM:SS GMT > > > > Therefore, because the Weekday isn't in an abbreviated form it is being > > discarded? > > Could be... > > This is my second answer because I made some mistakes... > > AFAIK, the most current RFC for cookies is RFC-2965, but it > doesn't say a word about the Expires format. > > The previous spec, RFC-2109 says: > > <q> > Netscape's original proposal defined an Expires header that took a > date value in a fixed-length variant format in place of Max-Age: > > Wdy, DD-Mon-YY HH:MM:SS GMT > </q> > > Note that YY is using two chars here, and that not a word is > said about 'Wdy'. > > http://www.danbbs.dk/~erikoest/hello.htm makes a real soup of > it all: > > In 1996 it was: > <q> > Wdy, DD-Mon-YY HH:MM:SS GMT > expires=Wednesday, 09-Nov-99 23:12:40 GMT > </q> > > *Note the example uses a full weekday name. > > In 1997 it became: > > <q> > The date string is formatted as: > > Wdy, DD-Mon-YYYY HH:MM:SS GMT > > This is based on RFC 822, RFC 850, RFC 1036, and RFC 1123, with > the variations that the only legal time zone is GMT and the > separators between the elements of the date must be dashes. > </q> > > Note the four characters year syntax, and the dashes > requirement. > > As for 'Wdy', RFC-1123 refers to RFC-822 which says day is: > > <q> > day = "Mon" / "Tue" / "Wed" / "Thu" > / "Fri" / "Sat" / "Sun" > </q> > > > RFC-1036 (USENET) which obsoletes RFC-850 says dates must be > acceptable to RFC-822. For instance: > > Dates: Wdy, DD Mon YY HH:MM:SS TIMEZONE > > (that's why the dashes and GMT requirements was added). > > > So that's it. It seems there are four legacy but legal formats: > > Wdy, DD-Mon-YY HH:MM:SS GMT > Wdy, DD-Mon-YYYY HH:MM:SS GMT > Weekday, DD-Mon-YY HH:MM:SS GMT > Weekday, DD-Mon-YYYY HH:MM:SS GMT > > with the second one being the most "correct". > > BTW, the site that Kelson pointed to as an example that uses > cookies and locks dillo on a CPU hog, uses: > > Wdy, DD-Mon-YY HH:MM:SS GMT > > so it's currently ignored. > > I'm working on it now, and found this interesting fact while > testing http://mosquito.wordpress.org/view_all_bug_page.php. > > > AFAIS, we'll have to accept the four date formats... > > Does anyone know better? > Does anyone Wanna' try to find out? > Comments out of simpathetic feelings to a maintainer having a > hard time through the RFCs? :) > > > -- > Cheers > Jorge.- > > _______________________________________________ > Dillo-dev mailing list > Dillo-dev(a)lists.auriga.wearlab.de > http://lists.auriga.wearlab.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dillo-dev >

Oct. 21, 2004

Re: [Dillo-dev]Bug #364

by Jorgen Viksell

Hi, I've been thinking a little bit about it, and have some input on the matter. ons 2004-10-20 klockan 18:58 -0300 skrev Jorge Arellano Cid: > On Wed, Oct 20, 2004 at 08:18:20PM +0800, Russell J. Wood wrote: > > Hello Dilldoers =b > > > > Would the said bug be because the Set-Cookie entity sent from advogato.org is > > not RFC compliant? > > > > Here is what I received: > > > > Set-Cookie: id=<data>; path=/; Expires=Thursday, 20-Oct-2005 11:57:18 GMT > > > > I'm under the impression the Expires attribute is meant to be as: > > > > Wdy, DD-MM-YYYY HH:MM:SS GMT > > > > Therefore, because the Weekday isn't in an abbreviated form it is being > > discarded? > > Could be... > > This is my second answer because I made some mistakes... > > AFAIK, the most current RFC for cookies is RFC-2965, but it > doesn't say a word about the Expires format. > > The previous spec, RFC-2109 says: It should be noted here that this is said in the "historical" section. And that "Expires" never has been part of an RFC (IIRC). > <q> > Netscape's original proposal defined an Expires header that took a > date value in a fixed-length variant format in place of Max-Age: > > Wdy, DD-Mon-YY HH:MM:SS GMT > </q> > > Note that YY is using two chars here, and that not a word is > said about 'Wdy'. [snip] > So that's it. It seems there are four legacy but legal formats: > > Wdy, DD-Mon-YY HH:MM:SS GMT > Wdy, DD-Mon-YYYY HH:MM:SS GMT > Weekday, DD-Mon-YY HH:MM:SS GMT > Weekday, DD-Mon-YYYY HH:MM:SS GMT > > with the second one being the most "correct". I want to point out here that we don't use the weekday part in any way, so it can be discarded. And the year part is parsed with strtol() in a way that it doesn't matter if it's two or four chars long (there is a check right after it to account for both cases). > > BTW, the site that Kelson pointed to as an example that uses > cookies and locks dillo on a CPU hog, uses: > > Wdy, DD-Mon-YY HH:MM:SS GMT > > so it's currently ignored. > > I'm working on it now, and found this interesting fact while > testing http://mosquito.wordpress.org/view_all_bug_page.php. > > > AFAIS, we'll have to accept the four date formats... I agree. In a perfect world the "Max-Age" attribute would be used everywhere. However, "Expires" has become a de-facto standard (and a badly defined such) which needs alot of "special attention" but it's also a must to have working cookies. > Does anyone know better? Not really... :-) > Does anyone Wanna' try to find out? > Comments out of simpathetic feelings to a maintainer having a > hard time through the RFCs? :) My advice: don't stare directly at it! ;-) Regards, Jörgen

Oct. 20, 2004

Re: [Dillo-dev]Bug #364

by Jorge Arellano Cid

On Wed, Oct 20, 2004 at 08:18:20PM +0800, Russell J. Wood wrote: > Hello Dilldoers =b > > Would the said bug be because the Set-Cookie entity sent from advogato.org is > not RFC compliant? > > Here is what I received: > > Set-Cookie: id=<data>; path=/; Expires=Thursday, 20-Oct-2005 11:57:18 GMT > > I'm under the impression the Expires attribute is meant to be as: > > Wdy, DD-MM-YYYY HH:MM:SS GMT > > Therefore, because the Weekday isn't in an abbreviated form it is being > discarded? Could be... This is my second answer because I made some mistakes... AFAIK, the most current RFC for cookies is RFC-2965, but it doesn't say a word about the Expires format. The previous spec, RFC-2109 says: <q> Netscape's original proposal defined an Expires header that took a date value in a fixed-length variant format in place of Max-Age: Wdy, DD-Mon-YY HH:MM:SS GMT </q> Note that YY is using two chars here, and that not a word is said about 'Wdy'. http://www.danbbs.dk/~erikoest/hello.htm makes a real soup of it all: In 1996 it was: <q> Wdy, DD-Mon-YY HH:MM:SS GMT expires=Wednesday, 09-Nov-99 23:12:40 GMT </q> *Note the example uses a full weekday name. In 1997 it became: <q> The date string is formatted as: Wdy, DD-Mon-YYYY HH:MM:SS GMT This is based on RFC 822, RFC 850, RFC 1036, and RFC 1123, with the variations that the only legal time zone is GMT and the separators between the elements of the date must be dashes. </q> Note the four characters year syntax, and the dashes requirement. As for 'Wdy', RFC-1123 refers to RFC-822 which says day is: <q> day = "Mon" / "Tue" / "Wed" / "Thu" / "Fri" / "Sat" / "Sun" </q> RFC-1036 (USENET) which obsoletes RFC-850 says dates must be acceptable to RFC-822. For instance: Dates: Wdy, DD Mon YY HH:MM:SS TIMEZONE (that's why the dashes and GMT requirements was added). So that's it. It seems there are four legacy but legal formats: Wdy, DD-Mon-YY HH:MM:SS GMT Wdy, DD-Mon-YYYY HH:MM:SS GMT Weekday, DD-Mon-YY HH:MM:SS GMT Weekday, DD-Mon-YYYY HH:MM:SS GMT with the second one being the most "correct". BTW, the site that Kelson pointed to as an example that uses cookies and locks dillo on a CPU hog, uses: Wdy, DD-Mon-YY HH:MM:SS GMT so it's currently ignored. I'm working on it now, and found this interesting fact while testing http://mosquito.wordpress.org/view_all_bug_page.php. AFAIS, we'll have to accept the four date formats... Does anyone know better? Does anyone Wanna' try to find out? Comments out of simpathetic feelings to a maintainer having a hard time through the RFCs? :) -- Cheers Jorge.-

Oct. 20, 2004