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

Re: The state of cookies

From: Dave Kristol <dmk@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 97 10:20:42 EST
Message-Id: <9703031520.AA06576@zp>
To: koen@win.tue.nl
Cc: http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com, state@xent.w3.org
koen@win.tue.nl (Koen Holtman) wrote:
  > >>[masinter@parc.xerox.com]
  > >>a) if we're not going to be compatible, why call it a "cookie"
  > >>  at all? It's not all that descriptive. "Set-state" and
  > >>   "state", for example.
  > >
  > >[DMK]
  > >Strangely enough, I was having similar thoughts. 
  > 
  > I think that `cookie' is more mainstream than `state' at this point.
  > 2^N end users have seen the word `cookie' in a popup and/or article.

True, although that's a user-interface issue and need not change if the
header name changes.  Anyway, it's not unreasonable for Larry to ask
the question.
  > 
  > > I agree with your
  > >argument in favor of a change.  The argument in favor of
  > >Set-Cookie2[/Cookie2] is to convey similarity of concept and behavior.
  > 
  > Please tell me: do you want to 
  >  1) completely revise a proposed standard
  >  2) fix a bug in the downwards compatibility scheme of a proposed
  >     standard
  > 
  > I find you leaning towards 1), which will require a new last call as
  > far as I am concerned. <---[intended to be provocative!]
  > 
  > I would rather do 2).  I want the state-mgmt standard to replace the
  > `NS cookie preliminary specification ad-hoc standard' as soon as
  > possible.

Yes, (1) would probably deserve a new last call, but I'm certainly no
expert on procedure.

I would prefer (2).  Maybe I got too exuberant with the idea of fixing
some warts in the current spec.  They bother me.  In any case, it's not
my place to decide either way unilaterally.

[Discussion of finger-pointing deleted.]

Dave Kristol
Received on Monday, 3 March 1997 07:26:16 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 24 September 2003 06:32:30 EDT