Re: Comments on the new cookie draft

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: Kolics Bertold, University of Veszprem: "What is the basic idea behind 305 Use Proxy?"
• Previous message: Anselm Baird_Smith: "RE: Comments on the new cookie draft"
• In reply to: Anselm Baird_Smith: "RE: Comments on the new cookie draft"

>>>>> "YG" == Yaron Goland writes:

YG> Given that the crux of the issue is the server vendor's needs, it
YG> would seem appropriate for them to comment. Would they rather
YG> sniff UA strings to determine how to properly format their cookies
YG> or would they rather be able to always send out two headers and
YG> know things will work?

  As one of the authors of our embedded server, I can unequivocally
  say that we are not interested in any resolution that requires that
  we examine UA strings.

  For our purposes, a solution that works within the context of the
  new spec and requires that the UA be upgraded to compliance with
  that spec is just fine.  I understand that from some other
  perspectives this would be less desirable.

--
Scott Lawrence             Principal Engineer        <lawrence@agranat.com>
Agranat Systems, Inc.                               http://www.agranat.com/

• Next message: Kolics Bertold, University of Veszprem: "What is the basic idea behind 305 Use Proxy?"
• Previous message: Anselm Baird_Smith: "RE: Comments on the new cookie draft"
• In reply to: Anselm Baird_Smith: "RE: Comments on the new cookie draft"