W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > January to March 2016

Re: Proposal: Cookie Priorities

From: Daniel Stenberg <daniel@haxx.se>
Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2016 10:53:04 +0100 (CET)
To: Mike West <mkwst@google.com>
cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Samuel Huang <huangs@google.com>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1603071033570.25615@tvnag.unkk.fr>
On Mon, 7 Mar 2016, Mike West wrote:

>> What happens to cookies that are actually called 'Priority' ?
>
> Like cookies named "HttpOnly" or "MaxAge", this is handled by step 1 of 
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6265#section-5.2, which splits the cookie 
> string on the first ';' into the name/value pair, and the set of attributes.

IOW: they'll stop working or get mixed up since we can't tell them apart?

HttpOnly isn't done using a key/value so it actually easy is to separate from 
a cookie named HttpOnly. Max-Age for cookies was first suggested in RFC 2109 
(from what I can tell) from 1997, which in theory would make it less likely to 
ever have worked very good as a cookie name.

Priority, however, has been a perfectly fine cookie name since the dawn of 
cookies. I of course have no idea how common it might be though.

Or am I missing some subtlety?

-- 

  / daniel.haxx.se
Received on Monday, 7 March 2016 09:53:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 22 March 2016 12:47:11 UTC