http://www.perlmonks.org?node_id=718111


in reply to Re: Minor problem with 'save destination as' for code.
in thread Minor problem with 'save destination as' for code.

Try taking the download link and retrieving it with wget or lynx -source or just plain GET if you have it on your system. It gets you a completely different thing to what you would expect based on experiences with a mainstream visual user agent (browser).

I don't know what you get, but i get exactly what i expect, and exactly what i'm getting when sniffing the traffic in firefox (the only exception being the lack of an X-Pad header which has nothing to do with PerlMonks doing any browser detection).

Perhaps instead of making vague claims that PM is doing bad things and saying "see for yourself" you could be a bit more explicit and say "this is what i see ... and i think it's bad."

  • Comment on Re^2: Minor problem with 'save destination as' for code.

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: Minor problem with 'save destination as' for code.
by smiffy (Pilgrim) on Oct 20, 2008 at 03:04 UTC

    I thought that I had made what I was getting clear but, if it was not, I apologise. (My original post actually states "...you actually get taken to the Monastery Gates".)

    The test I made was:

    • In Firefox, go to one of the 'Download' links in a node.
    • Right click the link.
    • From the context menu, select 'Copy link location'. (I have verified that what is copied is what shows at the bottom of Firefox when hovering over the link.)
    • Paste the link as an argument for 'lynx'.
    • Lynx loads the 'Monastery Gates' page, NOT the content of the <code></code> block to which the 'Download' link relates.

    The above behaviour is the same if the link is retrieved using wget.

    The main reason that I consider this behaviour bad is that the link target is other than expected (Monastery Gates, not content of <code></code> block.)

      That URL contains semicolons. My guess is that you didn't properly quote the URL. You'd get the gates if you didn't manage to keep the ";node_id=" as part of the URL passed to your GET tool.

      The site isn't doing "anti-social" "browser sniffing" (really, it isn't). I'll refrain from expressing with insulting terms the conclusions I've jumped to as to what you are doing. (:

      - tye