- From: Anselm Baird_Smith <abaird@www43.inria.fr>
- Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 08:04:18 +0100 (MET)
- 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>
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.
Received on Sunday, 23 February 1997 23:05:34 UTC