Re: Removing CommentURL
Judson Valeski (valeski@netscape.com)
Thu, 07 Aug 1997 22:30:02 -0700
Jonathan Stark wrote:
> You should probably check out the archive... we've debated the idea of
> not accepting cookies during these requests, but some have objected,
> saying basically that it's too dificult to turn cookies off for these
> requests.
I'm not sure what would be difficult about turning off cookies for commentURL requests.
> Most people on this list appear to see the benefit in having a comment
> and/or CommentURL. The question currently is if commentURL should be
> included.
Keep in mind that most people on this list know/care about cookies and their content. We're a unique user group who has a vested interest in cookies. I don't think the average user knows/cares about cookies to this degree and we may be getting a bit carried away proposing that commentURL be implemented.
> Without some connection between the cookie technology and the polcies
> governing their use at this level, (either comment or CommentURL
> or both) the general ignorance of the world towards cookies will continue.
> Nobody wins here except for journalists who like to scare people with how
> evil cookies are.
The commentURL may be considered the fine print that no-one will spend the time to read anyway. I also don't think content providers are going to want to share the meaning of their cookies (perhaps for marketing purposes).
> The reasons FOR commentURL are many: (Please add any I missed...)
> 1. International Language Support
It is for this reason that I believe comment should be yanked.
> If it comes down to picking one, I think we'd be crazy not to go with
> CommentURL, but I don't see any real problem with having both.
Having both is a waste of parsing code.
Judson