On Mon, 1 Jul 2002, John Baker wrote:
> Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2002 13:20:31 +0100
> From: John Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Reply-To: Tomcat Developers List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: Tomcat Developers List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: That Cookie thing
>
&
although the
> > wishy-washy (noone takes any notice of) spec says that's ok, most
> > browsers will totally ignore it.
> >
> > Therefore you've just made many developers very happy with you for
> > providing such a sensible warning.
> >
> >
&g
ve just made many developers very happy with you for providing
> such a sensible warning.
>
>
> John
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: John Baker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Monday, July 01, 2002 8:33 AM
> > To: Tomcat Developers List
>
e you've just made many developers very happy with you for providing
such a sensible warning.
John
> -Original Message-
> From: John Baker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, July 01, 2002 8:33 AM
> To: Tomcat Developers List
> Subject: Re: That Cookie thin
not working in the same manor that you did and
can fix it.
-Original Message-
From: John Baker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, July 01, 2002 8:33 AM
To: Tomcat Developers List
Subject: Re: That Cookie thing
On Monday 01 July 2002 13:29, Tim Funk wrote:
> http://wp.netscape.
On Monday 01 July 2002 13:38, peter lin wrote:
> John Baker wrote:
> > Well a reliable source tells me that there is no w3c spec for Cookies,
> > and infact the concept was conjured by Netscape. There is an RFC spec for
> > Cookies, but it's largely ignored.
> >
> > So as the useful browsers out t
John Baker wrote:
>
> Well a reliable source tells me that there is no w3c spec for Cookies, and
> infact the concept was conjured by Netscape. There is an RFC spec for
> Cookies, but it's largely ignored.
>
> So as the useful browsers out there ignore Cookie requests without a path, it
> migh
On Monday 01 July 2002 13:29, Tim Funk wrote:
> http://wp.netscape.com/newsref/std/cookie_spec.html
>OR
> http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2109.txt
>OR
> http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2965.txt
>
> PATH=path
> Optional. The Path attribute specifies the subset of URLs to which this
> cookie applies.
http://wp.netscape.com/newsref/std/cookie_spec.html
OR
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2109.txt
OR
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2965.txt
PATH=path
Optional. The Path attribute specifies the subset of URLs to which this
cookie applies.
John Baker wrote:
> On Monday 01 July 2002 13:16, peter lin w
On Monday 01 July 2002 13:16, peter lin wrote:
> that's the problem with assumptions :)
>
> Actually I believe the W3C spec says the path will default to directory
> the pages resides in. So that page /hello/greeting.jsp will have
> "/hello" as the path. Only files under "/hello" can read the coo
that's the problem with assumptions :)
Actually I believe the W3C spec says the path will default to directory
the pages resides in. So that page /hello/greeting.jsp will have
"/hello" as the path. Only files under "/hello" can read the cookie.
Atleast that's my understanding of how cookie path
On Monday 01 July 2002 12:59, peter lin wrote:
> if you want the cookies to be readable by all pages, you should set it
> to "/". That's standard practice. Also, if you have multiple webserver
> with names like www1, www2, www3., you should also set the cookie to
> use yourbiz.com.
I know th
if you want the cookies to be readable by all pages, you should set it
to "/". That's standard practice. Also, if you have multiple webserver
with names like www1, www2, www3., you should also set the cookie to
use yourbiz.com.
peter
John Baker wrote:
>
> It appears if you don't set a pa
It appears if you don't set a path on the cookie (setPath), it doesn't default
to anything and therefore doesn't place anything in the response header.
Browsers then ignore it ;-)
Perhaps Cookie by default should have a path of /.
John
--
John Baker, BSc CS.
Java Developer, TEAM/Slb. http:
14 matches
Mail list logo
