RE: Comments on the new cookie draft
Anselm Baird_Smith (abaird@www43.inria.fr)
Mon, 24 Feb 1997 08:04:18 +0100 (MET)
Yaron Goland writes:
> Alas this is the fortune reaped by the wide spread acceptance of a
> proprietary standard. At least with two headers the load on server
> processing is reduced versus having to sniff for UAs in order to
> determine how to format the cookie. Given that the crux of the issue is
> the server vendor's needs, it would seem appropriate for them to
> comment. Would they rather sniff UA strings to determine how to properly
> format their cookies or would they rather be able to always send out two
> headers and know things will work?
I would hate to have server implementations required to check the
user-agent string for anything. That's why currently cookie support in
Jigsaw doesn't work with some browser (even though it implements nearly
the latest spec). I am eager to get a solution to that problem, that
does not involve UA testing. If I had to choose between sending two
cookie headers and checking the UA, I would go for the first solution
(even though I hate emitting more bytes than needed on the wire).
Anselm.