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

Re: Should server beable to say NoCookie, No Show?

From: Jonathan Stark <stark@commerce.net>
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 1997 09:34:52 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <199703271734.JAA16284@boa.commerce.net>
To: Matthew Rubenstein <ruby@name.net>
Cc: yarong@microsoft.com, dwm@xpasc.com, http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/2933
quoting Matthew Rubenstein                

> At 02:02 PM 3/25/97 -0800, Yaron Goland wrote:
> >This is an absolutely excellent idea. I think it will go a long way
> >towards making content providers feel more comfortable about the cookie
> >spec.
>         I concur. The technique outlined below will make the association
> between the user's discarding the cookie and the app's probable failure in
> the cookie's absence. The message would be similar to an "Authentication
> Failed", "Document Returned No Data" or "No Response From Server",
> indicating a C/S failure. The "CommentURL" field also being discussed would
> be helpful as a supplement.

I hate to keep bringing up the same idea, but what do people
think about including an alternate URL, let's call it for now
a "NoCookieURL" that, if the cookie were rejected, would replace the
page that wouldn't work without the cookie.  There are some problems
there too, but then the user could customize the response returned
after a "required" (for the app to run) cookie was rejected?

(So, just to try and be clear, if a page was served with a cookie
and the cookie were refused, the user would instead see the page
at NoCookieURL.)

Same effect as NoCookie, but a little more customizable.
Perhaps if NoCookie had a value, it could be interpreted as a
URL, if not, it could signal one of the above mentioned errors...

Just a thought...

Received on Thursday, 27 March 1997 09:44:08 UTC

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