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

Re: LAST CALL, "HTTP State Management Mechanism (Rev1) " to Propo

From: David W. Morris <dwm@xpasc.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 1997 15:16:24 -0700 (PDT)
To: Foteos Macrides <MACRIDES@sci.wfbr.edu>
Cc: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Message-Id: <Pine.GSO.3.96.970722151021.21389J-100000@shell1.aimnet.com>
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/3861

On Tue, 22 Jul 1997, Foteos Macrides wrote:

> 	I don't see why you want to exclude sending of cookies when
> a UA is acting on the commentURL, nor why you are conceptualizing it
> as only for a policy statement.  That's possible, but the PEP or
> PEP-like extension is a better way to assess a site's "policy".  One
> of the main reasons for wanting cookie support in UAs is that it's a
> simple, "here now" way to maintain user preferences across documents
> at a site, and is complementary to the TCN/features mechanisms.  The

I think a prior post of mine would indicate agreement with your concern
but I'm not sure I would accept as a 'main reason' for cookie support
being the storage of preferences. Preferences are, IMHO, a minor 
concern and a particular type of 'session' which cookies can be used
to maintain. But all this really says is that cookies have tremendous
appeal because they are a general facility which can be used in many 
ways, each of which would probably be more effectively solved some 
other way.  They also enhance cachability of the web by reducing 
the need for munged URLs, etc.

Dave Morris
Received on Tuesday, 22 July 1997 15:20:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:40:20 UTC