- From: Darin Fisher <darin@chromium.org>
- Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2010 22:22:49 -0800
On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 9:21 PM, Adam Barth <w3c at adambarth.com> wrote: > On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 9:15 PM, Jonas Sicking <jonas at sicking.cc> wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 8:56 PM, Adam Barth <w3c at adambarth.com> wrote: > >> The document.cookie API is kind of terrible. Web developers shouldn't > >> have to parse a cookie-string or prepare a properly formated > >> set-cookie-string. Here's a proposal for an HTML cookie API that > >> isn't as terrible: > >> > >> > https://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AZpchfQ5mBrEZGQ0cDh3YzRfMTRmdHFma21kMg&hl=en > >> > >> I'd like to propose we include this API in a future version of HTML. > >> As always, feedback welcome. > > > > I really think the API should be asynchronous, as to avoid the mess > > that .localStorage currently is. > > Done. > > Adam > I have frequently seen code like this: document.cookie = "foo=1"; if (document.cookie.indexOf("foo") == -1) return; document.cookie = "bar=2"; if (document.cookie.indexOf("bar") == -1) return; I presume it is not uncommon for web authors to want to know if the cookies were set. Maybe there should be an optional error callback on document.setCookie? -Darin -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/attachments/20100223/7449b5fe/attachment.htm>
Received on Tuesday, 23 February 2010 22:22:49 UTC