On 22 September 2011 12:23, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 22 September 2011 12:19, WereSpielChequers
<werespielchequers(a)gmail.com> wrote:
So is there a simpler way to do this, is there
some flaw in this that would
prevent it working, or is this the flying unicorn option?
I believe it was envisioned as working for anonymous casual readers as well.
There *should* be some way to at least have the no-images option for
anonymous readers without ruining caching ...
Cookies? It would work on at least a per-session basis, I'd think.
One issue here is that if we make it registered-user-only we need to
work out how this interacts with account creation - and IP blocks. It
clearly will cause problems if people *want* to turn on the filter, go
to create an account, and discover one of our famed cryptic block
messages telling them they can't...
--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk