- From: Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com>
- Date: Sat, 1 Mar 1997 08:38:54 PST
- To: Dave Kristol <dmk@research.bell-labs.com>
- Cc: state@xent.w3.org, http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com
This morning, I started having some really bad second thoughts about the state of cookies. Here are some hard questions (intended to be provocative): a) if we're not going to be compatible, why call it a "cookie" at all? It's not all that descriptive. "Set-state" and "state", for example. b) if we're not going to be compatible, what's the rush? There's no installed base of "Set-Cookie2", so why should we try to revise this quickly? c) no-one has expressed an opinion that the new draft is actually technically better than RFC 2109, only that we should do this because of compatibility with some part of the "installed base". It's a bad precedent to revise a proposed standard for non-technical reasons, and only because one of the implementors didn't actually read the spec at the right time. d) There was some argument initially that the whole idea of cookies was a bad idea. If we reset to proposed, will we need to revisit those arguments, since what we're doing with cookies is no longer a reflection of "running code". -- http://www.parc.xerox.com/masinter
Received on Saturday, 1 March 1997 09:41:28 UTC