- From: Judson Valeski <valeski@netscape.com>
- Date: Thu, 07 Aug 1997 22:30:02 -0700
- To: stark@commerce.net
- Cc: dwm@xpasc.com, masinter@parc.xerox.com, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Jonathan Stark wrote: > 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 > requests. I'm not sure what would be difficult about turning off cookies for commentURL requests. > 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 > included. Keep in mind that most people on this list know/care about cookies and their content. We're a unique user group who has a vested interest in cookies. I don't think the average user knows/cares about cookies to this degree and we may be getting a bit carried away proposing that commentURL be implemented. > 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 commentURL may be considered the fine print that no-one will spend the time to read anyway. I also don't think content providers are going to want to share the meaning of their cookies (perhaps for marketing purposes). > The reasons FOR commentURL are many: (Please add any I missed...) > 1. International Language Support It is for this reason that I believe comment should be yanked. > 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. Having both is a waste of parsing code. Judson
Received on Thursday, 7 August 1997 22:34:14 UTC