W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > January to March 1997

RE: Should server beable to say NoCookie, No Show?

From: Yaron Goland <yarong@microsoft.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 1997 14:02:44 -0800
Message-Id: <11352BDEEB92CF119F3F00805F14F485026B72B3@RED-44-MSG.dns.microsoft.com>
To: "'David W. Morris'" <dwm@xpasc.com>, http working group <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com>
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/2897
This is an absolutely excellent idea. I think it will go a long way
towards making content providers feel more comfortable about the cookie

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	David W. Morris [SMTP:dwm@xpasc.com]
> Sent:	Tuesday, March 25, 1997 1:03 AM
> To:	http working group
> Subject:	Should server beable to say NoCookie, No Show?
> It seems to me that there are many applications which will break (in
> the
> sense of delivering confusing error messages, garbage, etc to the
> user) if
> a cookie isn't accepted by the UA and returned with the request
> resulting
> from a submit of the page which carried the set-cookie2.
> Symetry would suggest that since we encourage/allow a UA to discard a
> cookie under the user's discretion, we should have an optional
> attribute
> which allows the server to stipulate one of the following:
>   a.  Dont show the page if the user rejects the cookie
>   b.  Warn the user that if the cookie isn't accepted, the application
>       won't operate correctly (this is almost covered by the
>       comment/commentURL but its a different of message I think. Like
>       Windows allows a message box to be one of several types to
> reflect
>       the content, the significance of the comment to the user would
>       vary depending on the damage to the user's experience by
>       rejecting the cookie.
> Dave Morris
Received on Tuesday, 25 March 1997 22:08:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 2 February 2023 18:43:01 UTC