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

Re: Removing CommentURL

From: Jonathan Stark <stark@commerce.net>
Date: Sat, 26 Jul 1997 22:27:00 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <199707270527.WAA26605@boa.commerce.net>
To: Judson Valeski <valeski@netscape.com>
Cc: dwm@xpasc.com, masinter@parc.xerox.com, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/3940

> > cookie. Secondly, has has been pointed out, there is no
> > internationalization support in the comment, thirdly the ability to stick
> > a URL in comment text ... so what?
> The internationalization benefit that comes with the commentURL attribute is a defensible argument and it is quite convincing. I'm wondering if maintaining comment attribute character set information is the solution?

So now you're saying we should add character set information
to the comment attribute and still forget the commentURL attribute?
Please detail your objection to commentURL... It seems so much easier
and much more versatile than what you're now suggesting.
> I'm not sure nested cookies are really a concern. If the user is that interested in reading about the cookies being set on his machine, then he can read about every one associated with every commentURL that comes down the pike. If that spins him into a spiral he should tell his content provider not to set cookies when a request for a commentURL comes in. If content providers, malicious or not, don't abide, users will stop viewing commentURLs and then the attribute's very intent has been defeated. Or a simple solution
> would be to not allow cookies to be set/sent when a request goes out to a commentURL.

You should probably check out the archive... we've debated the idea of
not accepting cookies during these requests, but some have objected,
saying basically that it's too dificult to turn cookies off for these

I'm with you 100% here though.  Use CommentURL, and don't allow cookies
to be set or sent during the retrieval of the data at CommentURL...

Let's get back to the point.

Most people on this list appear to see the benefit in having a comment
and/or CommentURL.  The question currently is if commentURL should be

Without some connection between the cookie technology and the polcies
governing their use at this level, (either comment or CommentURL 
or both) the general ignorance of the world towards cookies will continue.  
Nobody wins here except for journalists who like to scare people with how
evil cookies are.
The reasons FOR commentURL are many:  (Please add any I missed...)
	1. International Language Support
	2. Less Bandwidth (as compared to Comment)
	3. Much more versatile and "rich" than straight text.
	4. A URL is more easily maintained than information in a
		Script, hence it's more likely that the data found
		at CommentURL will be updated than in comment

The reasons against (and somebody from the other side of the camp
please add on here..)
	1. It's too difficult to implement CommentURL
		(Though, strangely, some against CommentURL think it would
		be better to include CommentURL in Comment, having the
		browser search for URL's and handle them appropriately)
	2. Why have commentURL when we have comment...

After these lists get flushed out, is there a way we can vote on
it and move on?  It seems like we're beating a dead horse here.

If it comes down to picking one, I think we'd be crazy not to go with
CommentURL, but I don't see any real problem with having both.

Received on Saturday, 26 July 1997 22:30:17 UTC

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