Re: Opting in to cookies - proposal

Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 10:38:44 +0200, Maciej Stachowiak <> 
> wrote:
>> The downsides of inventing a URI scheme include:
>> 1) URIs using this scheme will not parse into components properly (the 
>> feed: scheme has this problem)
>> 2) The scheme really should be registered through IANA, which will be 
>> a bureaucratic hassle
>> 3) IANA would probably be hesitant, because user-private: does not 
>> describe a new resource access method, it just describes what headers 
>> you want to send, which in http is separate from the URI
>> 4) It is in fact a valid point that this violates the design of URI 
>> schemes
>> 5) Code throughout the system will have to know to special-case this 
>> URI scheme to treat it as equivalent to the corresponding HTTP URI
> I strongly agree that if we do this at all we should not do it through a 
> new URI scheme. If we do this something like Hixie's original proposal 
> makes more sense to me (and maybe allowing it to be influenced by a flag):

I detailed in
why I think doing requests twice is a bad idea, but i would be ok with 
introducing a flag.

/ Jonas

Received on Monday, 16 June 2008 17:12:05 UTC