W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > April to June 2008

Re: Opting in to cookies - proposal

From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 10:10:33 -0700
Message-ID: <48569E89.8000204@sicking.cc>
To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Cc: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, public-webapps@w3.org

Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> 
> On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 10:38:44 +0200, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com> 
> wrote:
>> The downsides of inventing a URI scheme include:
>>
>> 1) URIs using this scheme will not parse into components properly (the 
>> feed: scheme has this problem)
>> 2) The scheme really should be registered through IANA, which will be 
>> a bureaucratic hassle
>> 3) IANA would probably be hesitant, because user-private: does not 
>> describe a new resource access method, it just describes what headers 
>> you want to send, which in http is separate from the URI
>> 4) It is in fact a valid point that this violates the design of URI 
>> schemes
>> 5) Code throughout the system will have to know to special-case this 
>> URI scheme to treat it as equivalent to the corresponding HTTP URI
> 
> I strongly agree that if we do this at all we should not do it through a 
> new URI scheme. If we do this something like Hixie's original proposal 
> makes more sense to me (and maybe allowing it to be influenced by a flag):
> 
>   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-appformats/2008May/0007.html

I detailed in
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2008AprJun/0116.html
why I think doing requests twice is a bad idea, but i would be ok with 
introducing a flag.

/ Jonas
Received on Monday, 16 June 2008 17:12:05 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:25 GMT