Re: Should server beable to say NoCookie, No Show?
Jonathan Stark (stark@commerce.net)
Thu, 27 Mar 1997 09:34:52 -0800 (PST)
quoting Matthew Rubenstein
> At 02:02 PM 3/25/97 -0800, Yaron Goland wrote:
> >This is an absolutely excellent idea. I think it will go a long way
> >towards making content providers feel more comfortable about the cookie
> >spec.
>
> I concur. The technique outlined below will make the association
> between the user's discarding the cookie and the app's probable failure in
> the cookie's absence. The message would be similar to an "Authentication
> Failed", "Document Returned No Data" or "No Response From Server",
> indicating a C/S failure. The "CommentURL" field also being discussed would
> be helpful as a supplement.
I hate to keep bringing up the same idea, but what do people
think about including an alternate URL, let's call it for now
a "NoCookieURL" that, if the cookie were rejected, would replace the
page that wouldn't work without the cookie. There are some problems
there too, but then the user could customize the response returned
after a "required" (for the app to run) cookie was rejected?
(So, just to try and be clear, if a page was served with a cookie
and the cookie were refused, the user would instead see the page
at NoCookieURL.)
Same effect as NoCookie, but a little more customizable.
Perhaps if NoCookie had a value, it could be interpreted as a
URL, if not, it could signal one of the above mentioned errors...
Just a thought...
Jonathan