RE: Comments on the new cookie draft

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).

Anselm.