- From: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2012 17:44:16 -0700
- To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Cc: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
- Message-ID: <CABP7RbezOi3NdmdMtdybjC182ghCN+9WkL3+49vpyrbVpAAjgA@mail.gmail.com>
On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 5:14 PM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote: > James et al, > > Just a reminder: We're not here to re-define the semantics of HTTP; our > current charter is about how it goes across the wire. We can talk about > HTTP semantics on this list (and often do), but let's not get confused > about the scope of the current discussion. > > Hmm.. I'm not sure I see how discussion about the potential use of optional headers qualifies as "re-defining the semantics of HTTP". > I know that it's tempting to say "we're doing HTTP/2, let's throw this > in...", but if we start doing that, we're never going to finish. Let's stay > focused. Replacing Cookies is NOT a small task. > > Cheers, > > > On 18/07/2012, at 9:56 AM, Martin Thomson wrote: > > > On 17 July 2012 16:49, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> wrote: > >> This moved off list unintentionally... > > > > Ahh, oops. I thought it was intentional. > > > >> assuming we can successful move people away from using sessions as a > whole > > > > Who are you trying to kid? Cookies are here to stay. It's just that > > anyone with any sense will avoid them. > > > >> (While we're at it, can we also eliminate routing based on the > request-uri?) > > > > Why would you ever want to do that? That's an important feature. At > > least it is stateless. > > > > -- > Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/ > > > >
Received on Wednesday, 18 July 2012 00:45:04 UTC