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

RE: Unverifiable Transactions / Cookie draft

From: Yaron Goland <yarong@microsoft.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 1997 22:20:40 -0800
Message-Id: <11352BDEEB92CF119F3F00805F14F485025666CD@RED-44-MSG.dns.microsoft.com>
To: "'David W. Morris'" <dwm@xpasc.com>, http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com
Cc: http working group <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com>
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/2739

To quote from the current cookie draft:
      * to determine whether a stateful session is in progress.

      * to control the saving of a cookie on the basis of the cookie's
        Domain attribute.

The average user doesn't know about cookies and frankly they don't want
to know about cookies. However browser implementers are now forced to
put UI in front of them to tell them more than they ever cared to know
about cookies. Since the user doesn't know what a cookie is, they are
going to call up to find out what the heck this cookie stuff is about.
Who pays for that call? The browser implementer. So a wire protocol is
taking away browser implementers right to control the experience users
have with the very program the browser implementer is selling.


> -----Original Message-----
> From:	David W. Morris [SMTP:dwm@xpasc.com]
> Sent:	Tuesday, March 18, 1997 8:08 AM
> To:	http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com
> Cc:	http working group
> Subject:	RE: Unverifiable Transactions / Cookie draft
> On Tue, 18 Mar 1997, Yaron Goland wrote:
> > There is an interesting assumption being made that protocols have
> the
> > right to dictate user interface to software makers. Am I the only
> one
> > who finds this development disturbing? Not because I am overly
> concerned
> > about protocols dictating UI, the protocol will be roundly ignored
> and
> > compliance will be coincidental at best, but rather that by
> dictating
> > requirements in areas clearly beyond the scope of a wire protocol,
> the
> > authority of the protocol group is lessened.
> When the purpose of the protocol is to allow for reliable
> communication
> between a user and an application, there is sometimes no other choice
> than
> to specify the content of the UI. There is a large difference in my
> mind
> between describing what choices the user must be presented with and
> telling the UI designer how to present those choices. The UI choices
> I've
> seen have all been related to specification of the communication
> features
> required.
> If you object to a specific statement, please be specific. I have seen
> no
> general trend to take over the UI.
> Dave Morris
Received on Tuesday, 18 March 1997 22:22:09 UTC

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