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

Re: Removing CommentURL

From: Judson Valeski <valeski@netscape.com>
Date: Thu, 07 Aug 1997 22:30:02 -0700
Message-Id: <33EAAED9.559DE5DF@netscape.com>
To: stark@commerce.net
Cc: dwm@xpasc.com, masinter@parc.xerox.com, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/4114
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.

Received on Thursday, 7 August 1997 22:34:14 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 2 February 2023 18:43:03 UTC