Micah Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> The new Wget flags empty Set-Cookie as a syntax error (but only >> displays it in -d mode; possibly a bug). > > I'm not clear on exactly what's possibly a bug: do you mean the fact > that Wget only calls attention to it in -d mode?
That's what I meant. > I probably agree with that behavior... most people probably aren't > interested in being informed that a server breaks RFC 2616 mildly; Generally, if Wget considers a header to be in error (and hence ignores it), the user probably needs to know about that. After all, it could be the symptom of a Wget bug, or of an unimplemented extension the server generates. In both cases I as a user would want to know. Of course, Wget should continue to be lenient towards syntax violations widely recognized by popular browsers. Note that I'm not arguing that Wget should warn in this particular case. It is perfectly fine to not consider an empty `Set-Cookie' to be a syntax error and to simply ignore it (and maybe only print a warning in debug mode).
