[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hasn't anyone else reported a problem doing XHR even with
the same origin?
Not that I know of, no.
Could you maybe do an HTTP log of the same-origin access on Vista with
both 2.0.0.17 and 2.0.0.18 and either put those files somewhere or send
them to me directly?
T
On Nov 25, 11:48 am, Daniel Veditz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > I would lose Bookmarks wouldn't I.
>
> No, you'd have to explicitly delete your profile data for that to
> happen. It may be an option in the uninstaller (it's been a while since
> I've used it) but it's de
On Nov 24, 8:01 pm, Boris Zbarsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > So the problem must be in my code not a
> > regression with the upgrade, but the upgrade appears to have broken my
> > formerly working script.
>
> That would be a bug; point releases shouldn't be breaking w
Lucas Adamski wrote:
> My 2c is that if we do this we should do versioning from the get go,
> otherwise servers will have a hard time telling CSP v1.0 from CSP
> unsupported clients in the future. On one hand this may waste some
> bandwidth now, but then again if it saves the server from sending C
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I would lose Bookmarks wouldn't I.
No, you'd have to explicitly delete your profile data for that to
happen. It may be an option in the uninstaller (it's been a while since
I've used it) but it's definitely not the default.
___
On Nov 24, 8:01 pm, Boris Zbarsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > So the problem must be in my code not a
> > regression with the upgrade, but the upgrade appears to have broken my
> > formerly working script.
>
> That would be a bug; point releases shouldn't be breaking
