- From: David W. Morris <dwm@xpasc.com>
- Date: Sat, 26 Jul 1997 21:26:45 -0700 (PDT)
- To: Judson Valeski <valeski@netscape.com>
- Cc: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
> attribute). Rather than placing the responsibility on the protocol to > provide potential confidence about a cookie, shouldn't it be placed on > the content provider. Cookies are a mechanism by which one can store > potentially stateful information and various bits of data, not one that > provides a privacy issue/non-issue communication channel. The point is not that the protocol provides confidence by providing either the comment or the commentURL only that the protocol provides the content provider (aka server) with the ability to easily associate the description of cookie usage or whatever they'd like to say with the cookie. What you propose guarantees that users will never look at the information about cookies. How do you expect them to find the information on Netscape's or IBM's or Micorsoft's sites. The commentURL provides the connection. Otherwise it's a giant adventure game. Dave Morris
Received on Saturday, 26 July 1997 21:28:37 UTC