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

Re: Set-Cookie2: "additive" vs. "independent"

From: David W. Morris <dwm@xpasc.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 1997 09:29:05 -0700 (PDT)
To: Foteos Macrides <MACRIDES@sci.wfbr.edu>
Cc: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com, http-state@lists.research.bell-labs.com
Message-Id: <Pine.GSO.3.96.970729092627.5628C-100000@shell1.aimnet.com>
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/3983

On Tue, 29 Jul 1997, Foteos Macrides wrote:

> dmk@research.bell-labs.com (Dave Kristol) wrote:
> >Simpler still, a UA that supports new-style cookies should be sending
> >	Cookie: $Version=0
> >followed by other cookie values.  If the server understands new-style
> >cookies, it could respond to further requests with Set-Cookie2.
> 	I just tried sending  Cookie: $Version=0; realcookie=realvalue
> for:
>    Linkname: HTML Form-Testing Home Page
>         URL: http://www.research.digital.com/nsl/formtest/home.html
> and got back:
>                         Form Test Results for General1
>    Test results:
>      * NetscapeCookie - Bad HTTP Cookie value: $Version=0; COOKIE=testvalue
> [...]

What if the client sends the $version= by itself? It is legal to send
multiple cookie headers and while folding is possible in theory, I'd
guess it doesn't happen much in practice, but could be wrong, and the
folding wouldn't be applied to an unknown header field name...

Received on Tuesday, 29 July 1997 09:30:53 UTC

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