W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg-old@w3.org > January to April 1997

RE: Comments on the new cookie draft

From: Anselm Baird_Smith <abaird@www43.inria.fr>
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 08:04:18 +0100 (MET)
Message-Id: <199702240704.IAA02929@www43.inria.fr>
To: Yaron Goland <yarong@microsoft.com>
Cc: "'dmk@research.bell-labs.com'" <dmk@research.bell-labs.com>, "'http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com'" <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com>, "Henry Sanders (Exchange)" <henrysa@exchange.microsoft.com>, Cameron Ferroni <cameronf@microsoft.com>, Quentin Clark <quentinc@microsoft.com>, David Treadwell <davidtr@microsoft.com>
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/2540
Yaron Goland writes:
 > Alas this is the fortune reaped by the wide spread acceptance of a
 > proprietary standard. At least with two headers the load on server
 > processing is reduced versus having to sniff for UAs in order to
 > determine how to format the cookie. Given that the crux of the issue is
 > the server vendor's needs, it would seem appropriate for them to
 > comment. Would they rather sniff UA strings to determine how to properly
 > format their cookies or would they rather be able to always send out two
 > headers and know things will work?

I would hate to have server implementations required to check the
user-agent string for anything. That's why currently cookie support in
Jigsaw doesn't work with some browser (even though it implements nearly
the latest spec). I am eager to get a solution to that problem, that
does not involve UA testing. If I had to choose between sending two
cookie headers and checking the UA, I would go for the first solution
(even though I hate emitting more bytes than needed on the wire).

Received on Sunday, 23 February 1997 23:05:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:40:19 UTC