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

RE: RFC2109 addition...

From: Yaron Goland <yarong@microsoft.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 1997 15:05:19 -0800
Message-Id: <11352BDEEB92CF119F3F00805F14F485026B72BA@RED-44-MSG.dns.microsoft.com>
To: "'stark@commerce.net'" <stark@commerce.net>
Cc: dwm@xpasc.com, http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com
This is getting totally out of control. Cookies are supposed to be a
light weight state mechanism. If the user doesn't trust the site then
they shouldn't accept cookies from the site. If the site wishes to
explain their use of cookies they can put a link on their home page.
Commenting is totally out of control. At the rate we are going, we will
have to put in features to negotiation on the syntax and language of the
comments.
	Yaron

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Jonathan Stark [SMTP:stark@commerce.net]
> Sent:	Tuesday, March 25, 1997 12:20 AM
> To:	Yaron Goland
> Cc:	dwm@xpasc.com; stark@commerce.net; http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com
> Subject:	Re: RFC2109 addition...
> 
> > 
> > Why not just make the comment field syntax into something like
> > CommentAttribute = "Comment" "=" (Quoted-String | "<" URI ">")
> > ?
> > 		Yaron
> 
> I disagree with this approach unless we make it legal to have
> multiple Comment attributes within the same cookie (And I don't
> think we really do want to do that.)  As discussed earlier, I think 
> there is a definite value in being able to include a URI AND a 
> comment "string".  Some browsers may support one and not the other, 
> some groups may want to dynamically explain their cookies,
> sending a user-specific comment string with each cookie, or who
> knows... I don't think we should limit ourselves to having
> one or the other.
> 
> (And Dave, I like the quoted notation for the URL's better than
> <> as well.)
> 
> Jonathan
Received on Tuesday, 25 March 1997 23:21:19 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 24 September 2003 06:32:33 EDT