[10617] in www-talk@info.cern.ch
Re: errata for cookie spec
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Martijn Koster)
Mon Feb 10 12:39:01 1997
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 09:27:04 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <199702070838.JAA28448@wsooti08.win.tue.nl>
To: koen@win.tue.nl (Koen Holtman), ruby@name.net (Matthew Rubenstein)
From: Martijn Koster <m.koster@webcrawler.com>
Cc: jeremey@veriweb.com, www-talk@w3.org
Resent-From: www-talk@w3.org
At 9:38 AM +0100 2/7/97, Koen Holtman wrote:
>Servers have no business sharing information without the user's consent, and
>I therefore see not reason why sharing information in a sneaky way should be
>particularly cheap or easy. If they want to share, let them embed the info
>in a link where the user can see it.
Oh come on -- I thought we had moved beyond that one. That screws up caching,
bookmarking, indexing etc etc.
Saying "Servers have no business sharing information" is too easy --
that forces the granularity pretty arbitrarily onto a domain name.
Excite owns both excite.com and webcrawler.com -- would it be "sneakily
sharing" if I wanted to preserve preferences between these two sites?
If not, then why prevent a way to achieve this cleanly? If it is, then
why doesn't the same argument hold for different server under the same
domain, or even for different cgi-bin scripts on a server?
Just my $.02
-- Martijn
Email: m.koster@webcrawler.com
WWW: http://info.webcrawler.com/mak/mak.html
