- From: Koen Holtman <koen@win.tue.nl>
- Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 20:15:49 +0100 (MET)
- To: Benjamin Franz <snowhare@netimages.com>
- Cc: koen@win.tue.nl, FisherM@is3.indy.tce.com, dmk@research.bell-labs.com, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com, www-talk@w3.org
Benjamin Franz: > >On Thu, 6 Feb 1997, Koen Holtman wrote: [...] >> Something very much like that is already in the spec: see section >> >> 4.3.5 Sending Cookies in Unverifiable Transactions >> >> Or am I missing some subtle point here? > >I overlooked that. Ummmm...Wordy and confusingly written, I don't think it is more wordy than it has to be (but then again, I wrote most of the words in that section). This is a tricky issue, so it requires tricky langage. You can't just say `inlined or embebbed', like you propose, because there is also URLs accessed as a result of redirection with a 302 response, URLs accessed by java applets, plug-ins, some new technology which will be invented 1 year from now, etc. And the rule needs to apply to all these things. >but it does seem >to try and say pretty much the same thing. OK. As for creatively misinterpreting the spec: that is always possible. Vendors who don't like the restrictions in the spec will just not implement the spec, they are not going to bother with creative misinterpretations. In the end, the marketplace will decide whether they get away with it. >Benjamin Franz Koen.
Received on Thursday, 6 February 1997 11:24:01 UTC